Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive278

Amber Heard

Users have been adding quite controversial relating to domestic violence on the Amber Heard article, which seems to be media sensationalism. There are also multiple overall BLP issues on the article. IWI (chat) 22:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Diffs please? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like [1] as one example. --Masem (t) 22:36, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly controversial and I don't know what the overall BLP issues are. I do see IWI doing this thing where someone makes a last edit in an edit war, says to take it to the talk page, and does not even start a discussion there. If there are subsequent discussions of domestic violence why isn't the earlier incident relevant? There was an arrest. And why is the victim's opinion not relevant? It would help to have specific policy arguments rather than edit warring, lack of tp discussion, and a short complaint. Can't work with that. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

posted by anon

Resolved

 - Handled. AGK ■ 13:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Extended content
Ryan Clark (musician) An anon published the subject's address in the edit summary of a recent edit. It should be redacted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

David Wolfe (raw food advocate)

This is in relation to David Wolfe (raw food advocate) and his nonsensical claim that solar panels somehow "damage" the Sun by absorbing energy from it. He later retracted this claim, and claimed that it was not intended to be taken seriously. However he's not a comedian, he's a pundit on diet and various pseudoscience topics: he makes such claims, he makes them regularly, he makes a career from this. The questions for us are: "Do we treat credibly this claim that it was just a joke?" and "Do we have adequate sourcing for whatever we claim?"

There is talk: page discussion of this: Talk:David Wolfe (raw food advocate)#Solar panels and levitating water. One editor, Bilby, is edit-warring against three others (inc. myself) to remove this. They claim various justifications, "per talk", "per consensus" (it's obviously neither), "poor sourcing", "SPS".

This has now gone to WP:ANEW/3RR, which it clearly breaks, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Bilby_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_(Result:_), where they claim the BLP sourcing exemption for 3RR.

Does this noticeboard have any thoughts on this, particularly the sourcing (Snopes). The talk page thread may be a good place to start reading, it's fairly clear. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

This is clearly against BLP. The very source you are using to say that he believes that solar panels damage the sun quotes him saying that it was not meant to be taken literally, and never claims that he believes this - only that he posted a meme making that statement. [2] You cannot use a source that quotes him as saying that he does not believe something and use it to claim that he does. - Bilby (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Bilby's understanding of the sources and of policy is correct. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

As discussed at Talk:, I make no claims about what he "believes" - I just can't know that. As a promoter of pseudoscience though, I'm interested in what he publishes, in the context of presenting this as serious advice to the general public. This is his career. As already noted, I would be happy to reword this from "believes" to "claimed" or even just "wrote" – we cannot, no matter what the sources, know what goes on inside his head.

Now, do we have sourcing that he published the "solar power" claim here? Yes, of course we do. I cannot see any plausible challenge to that.

Secondly, he "retracted" the claim afterwards, and then claimed that it was not meant to be taken seriously. Again, we have no challenge to that. But, we don't know if he did that truthfully, or because he error had become embarassing. So we don't claim that either way.

Bilby is claiming a BLP exception to 3RR (which otherwise they're clearly past). However that would only apply if the sourcing was faulty, i.e. if they can show that Snopes is failing as WP:RS. I see no reason to believe this, Bilby has given none. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

The sourcing is faulty because the source does not directly support the article text. The article text was: (Outside of medicine, Wolfe believes that ...) solar panels drain the suns power. The Snopes source doesn't support that text; all it says is that he tweeted a meme. And no, changing the verb to "claims" is not sufficient; the source does not support that either. All it says is that he tweeted a meme. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Fully agree with Bilby, Ryk72. It's trying to take one statement out of context without the clarification from Wolfe, and when that's included, it makes little sense to even include it if it was meant as a joke and no one took it seriously. --Masem (t) 15:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Posting memes is what wolfe does. He posted it, he said it was a joke, he took it down. All of that was sourced. If it is presented in the article from a NPOV (which would prohibit referencing his belief, and attributed to proper sourcing, BLP does not prevent it from being included. It demonstrates that he posts such memes, and in this case says it was a joke. Jacona (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Masem - I find it hard to credit this "I wasn't serious" claim when it was two days afterwards that he posted that. For two days, this had been a posted statement from Wolfe, and a call to action to his suporters, exactly as if it were a serious statement, and exactly as he does his other various pseudoscience claims. He has a history of these rather outlandish statements, I'm unaware of any others where he has said "I wasn't serious" and he is generally presenting them as his main platform of advocacy. As such, I see reason for us to note that he disowned the claim afterwards, but at the time he made it it was indistinguishable from any of his other claims, and so it's reasonable for us (with the sourcing we have) to treat it as such. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Some of his other claims are a lot more plausible though. I worry, from a BLP point of view, that the article is too much cherry-picking his most ridiculous claims. MPS1992 (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure this is even his most ridiculous claim. There are a great many to choose from, and it's not cherry picking to choose a couple, even if farcically wrong, because this is a guy who has set himself up as an authority for issuing these claims, as if they're fundamental truths. To decide "We won't report his errors" is for WP to abandon what I see as a key stance on pseudoscience. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not here to promote "a key stance on pseudoscience". MPS1992 (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• NPOV still doesn't make the Earth flat. Wolfe's woo-woo on deer antlers goes in here once there's RS for it, and not before. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• We have to work from the long-term, not the short-term. You're arguing the short-term case as if we are documenting events in real time, but the sourcing implies the long-term view, with the fact he pulled it later being recognized as being a joke. --Masem (t) 17:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• I don't believe that Wolfe got any smarter two days later, he was just embarassed to be the butt of so many jokes (sheer OR and I know we can't add that). But I don't believe that this one example is in any way (BLP-wise) unrepresentative of his general poor grasp on conventional science. We could choose another quote, maybe "chocolate is an octave of Sun energy", "gravity is a toxin", "oceans only stay on the Earth because they're salty" or that H P Lovecraftian "mushrooms are from space". It is a long term and easily sourced set of outlandish claims, this is not some isolated outlier. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• @Masem, wouldn't that be the way to justify holocaust denial or neo-confederate thinking? It seems odd to treat events as if time did not pass between them, when sources show that time did indeed pass. Jacona (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

No, that's a very difficult situation. We're talking when a person said one thing one day, and a few days later redacted that claim or similar. On the other hand, if the person states they are a holocaust denier, and never waivers on that, that's a different issue. --Masem (t) 21:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

What's the need to try to push any of his claims outside those that have gotten reasonable attention in multiple RSes? He does appear to be already noted as a pseudoscience pusher, and a few of his states such as those relating to solar power are discussed, but just because he is a pseudoscience pusher doesn't mean every distinct claim made needs to be addressed, particularly if it is not noted by multiple sources. --Masem (t) 21:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

According to policy, negative material should not be in there at all, if it's not supported by multiple reliable sources. MPS1992 (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

No, there's no such policy. WP:BLPSOURCE: "must be attributed to a reliable, published source" Not multiple, Andy Dingley (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

BLPREMOVE says to remove contentious material that is poorly sourced. Single-sourced criticism qualifies.--Masem (t) 23:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Is that true in every case regardless of any other circumstances? Could you refer us to the policy that clarifies that any single-sourced criticism should be removed? Thanks! Jacona (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there is such a policy: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." That's for public figures. Is Wolfe one? By chance, while reverting Bilby, Andy Dingley restored a cite to a poor source that says, yes, Wolfe is "One of Facebook’s most ubiquitous public figures". But let's prefer a dictionary definition of public figure: "an individual or entity that has acquired fame or notoriety or has participated in a particular public controversy". Wolfe has notoriety and/or has participated in food controversies. So the policy applies, although, since snopes was a poor source for the specific claim about what Wolfe "believes", Bilby didn't even need that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Divorce date

There is a weird situation regarding the interpretation of a source at Alex Kingston. The issue cuts across several areas but since it considers a living person I thought this might be the best place to ask. The actress Alex Kingston got divorced at some point between 2010 and 2015; we know this for sure because she got re-married in 2015. The problem though, is that although sources at the time (2010/2011) reported she was was getting divorced, it wasn't actually clear when she got divorced because Kingston herself refused to answer questions about her marriage. However, in June 2011 she confirmed she and her husband were no longer together, stating "I can't talk about that, but we have been apart for two years": [3]. In 2014, she started referring to Haertel as her ex-husband: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-2719039/Alex-Kingston-I-ve-lived-tough-stuff-survived.html.

For a long period the article stayed in a stable state simply giving the date of separation (see [4]). However, this has since been challenged at Talk:Alex_Kingston#Divorce_date, where a particular editor is forcefully arguing that Kingston and her husband divorced in 2010, based on his interpretation of the court documents (see http://www.lacourt.org/CaseSummary/UI/casesummary.aspx?caseNumber=BD513924). His interpretation of this document is that Kingston and her husband divorced six months after her husband filed for divorce in October 2009. I disagree with this interpretation. Needless to say that interpreting a public record is technically a violation of WP:PRIMARY, although it reads to me that the marriage ended in March 2013.

Is there somebody with a legal background who can interpret what these court documents indicate in the context of the divorce? And if not, can we get some advice about how to resolve the issue. I am getting fed up with a discussion on the talk page that is seemingly going nowhere so it would benefit from some extra input I think. Ideally the article would benefit from having the correct dates, but in the absence of that I think it would be detrimental if the article misrepresented what is actually known. Thanks in advance to anyone who can help out. Betty Logan (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

On the assumption no legal advice is coming, the best solution is to be as vague as the sources: "Kingston had been married to (former husband), but sometime between 2010 and 2015 had divorsed him before marrying (current husband)." if OR is needed to inteprete court documents, we cann't do that. --Masem (t) 02:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. We can certainly narrow down the legal limits on the divorce date to 2010–2013 by applying a bit of common sense (I do know for sure that the divorce is finalized once the Entry of Judgment is filed), the question is whether the divorce perhaps takes effect prior to this at an earlier ruling. On your wider point I agree with what you say, but the infobox doesn't allow for that level of context. If we cannot pin down the divorce date would you advise reverting to the earlier state where we give the date of separation, or perhaps just using a question mark i.e. 2010–? ...? Betty Logan (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps with an endnote to explain the "?". --Masem (t) 03:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

NB: if anyone else tries accessing the court record, for some reason the link wouldn't open up in my browser so I had to type in the case number (BD513924) again at the search page: http://www.lacourt.org/website/FindaCase.aspx. Betty Logan (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Deepa Nisanth

Deepa Nisanth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs attention. It seems reasonable to include the plagiarism which has been well covered, but I'm not sure about the word theft. Her article seems to be attracting her opponents and I note that she says she's received death threats[5], something not mentioned in the article. Doug Weller talk 12:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the part about the theft, since it seems redundant.--Auric talk 15:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Jack Evans - old consensus used to stop recently reported revelations

In December 2018, The Washington Post reported that a consulting firm owned by Evans had received 200,000 shares of stock in a digital sign company in 2016 (at an estimated worth of $100,000); a month after the firm received the stocks, Evans pushed for emergency legislation to allow the digital sign company to operate. This content is being kept out of the Jack Evans (D.C. politician) article, with editors citing a consensus not to include content on this subject months ago - yet the Dec 2018 Washington Post reporting contains new revelations (which were not known when the consensus was reached). The talk page discussions look extremely complicated and all-over-the-place, and the subject of the article is active both on the talk page and in editing his own article. I think more eyes and input would be helpful on the Jack Evans (D.C. politician) talk page[6] - it's way too complicated and time-consuming for me to get into. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Its worth noting that the subject of the article was asked to stop editing the article itself and seek consensus on the talk page and has by and large done that. Last edit from him to the mainspace was the 27th of august and he seems to have sporadically participated in talk since. I strongly agree with Snooganssnoogans that more eyes are helpful on this page. Bonewah (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

2nd RfC: The Daily Mail

The latest Daily Mail RfC is about to close. If anyone reading this has input on this, now is the time to participate in the RfC.

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#2nd RfC: The Daily Mail. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Mathew L. Golsteyn

You can skip to #Mathew L. Golsteyn - a summary on 2018-12-22

1. I prepared a new article on Mathew L. Golsteyn.
2. An IP contributor cut the article back to a stub, with the edit summary "Stub out for numerousBLP issues. Specifically the account of the killing of the bomb maker (NY Times says bomb maker was released, not taken off base) and the obvious BLP1E issue. This is news, not encyclopedic biography."
3. That IP contributor seemed to be using the same approximate range as a perennial wikistalker who was indefinitely blocked last year, so I reverted them, but, after reading the advice of an administrator, who I had asked for input, I agreed to undo my reversion. I said I would seek more input, because I didn't agree with the administrator's advice.
4. I re-added a paragraph the IP contributor removed. I don't think they bothered to really read the article, or its references. The paragraph in question covered how, during the period the Army was investigating Golsteyn, that scrutiny found he had called Will Swenson, another soldier, who was about to receive a Medal of Honor, a "friend". Golsteyn's friendship triggered an inquiry into Swenson that resulted in his friends and family being interviewed, and delayed his receipt of his Medal of Honor for a year. Since this is covered in Sempson's article it seemed absurd to excise it from Golsteyn's article.
5. I added short paragraph to the Duncan Hunter article, about his support of Golsteyn. This google news search hits over six dozen articles, over the last three years, showing Hunter's efforts to support Golsteyn.
6. I added a subsection to Donald_Trump_on_social_media

So, does BLP really recommend the excision the IP contributor made?

We show deference to individuals who merely face allegations. But the Army conducted a three year inquiry into Golsteyn's confession to the CIA. His Board of Inquiry determined he should be discharged. If I am not mistaken Golsteyn could have disputed the Board's determination, if he disputed the underlying facts it was based on. I have seen BLP discussions where those arguing to protect non-notable individuals who face allegations should not have them covered in their articles, until a trial convicts them. Golsteyn's three year inquiry wasn't a trial. But, surely its determination establishes he did kill an unarmed prisoner?

Further, Golsteyn openly acknowledged killing the prisoner on national TV, during his 2016 Fox News interview. He wasn't tricked into this open acknowledgement. So, following an open acknowlegement is there any actual BLP justification for shying away from covering the killing?

The administrator I asked for advice voiced a "one event" concern.

I know there is a range of interpretations as to what does, or doesn't constitute an event. In my reply on that administrator's talk page I listed over half a dozen things I thought should be considered events, so I disagreed that ONEEVENT applies.

Yes, some, like Golsteyn being awarded a Silver Star, in 2011, fall short of establishing enough notability to justify a standalone article, all by themselves. But very few of our millions of BLP articles had their notability established by a single factor. But almost all of the subjects of our millions of BLP articles had their notability determined by a kind of notability calculation of the fractional notability established by multiple factors.

In my opinion the wikipedia works best when articles are richly linked to related articles. Our readers may want to traverse the information in our body of content in unpredictable order, best served by richly linked articles.

Golsteyn should be linked to articles on Duncan Hunter, Donald_Trump_on_social_media, Will Swenson, the battle of Marjah, and several other articles. When an article is really only linked to one other article, arguments that one topic should be merged, and covered in a subsection of the other article have more strength. But when an article is related to multiple other articles, those arguments make less sense.

If everything we covered about Golsteyn was shoehorned into a subsection of the article on Duncan Hunter, the coverage of Trump's tweets, or Army scrutiny on Swenson, would be off-topic. Each of those other articles probably needs a sentence, or two, to provide some context, to give the reader guidance as to whether they should jump to the Golsteyn article. But the details of Golsteyn actually belong in an article on Golsteyn. Geo Swan (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The event is Operation Moshtarak and should be covered there as part of that event. The biography should be deleted as the person is not notable beyond that. 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Everybody, 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001 is the anonymous IP contributor who made the big excision I mentioned at the top of this section.

1. 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001, in point number 4, at the top of this section, I noted that your big excision removed the last paragraph I added, the paragraph that linked to Golsteyn's friend Will Swenson. I wrote there " Since this is covered in Sempson's article it seemed absurd to excise it from Golsteyn's article." Is there a reason you haven't responded to this point?
2. 2600:8800:1300:4B4:0:0:0:1001, on 2010-02-18 Golsteyn, and a confederate, removed the prisoner from the base, and killed him. Two days later, on 2018-02-20, Golsteyn and other GIs were being fired upon by a sniper. Comrades were killed or wounded. Golsteyn was credited with serving as the spotter who guided the artillery or aerial bombardment which dispatched the sniper. Golsteyn was awarded a Silver Star for this.

   By my count, this is two events, just at this battle. Geo Swan (talk) 07:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Geo Swan raised this with me at User talk:Nick-D#your assistance please... (I'm the admin noted in their post above). The IP editor was entirely correct to reduce the article to almost nothing given that it contains negative BLP material not supported by any source, with their edit summary correctly stating why they made this change. Geo Swan was totally out of line restoring this material. As they have an extensive history of violating WP:BLP, I'm seriously concerned about this conduct. As also noted, this person doesn't meet WP:ONEEVENT: the incident is probably notable, but the person is not. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• Nick-D, you wrote that the initial draft contained "negative BLP material not supported by any source". Is there any way you could be specific about what you consider is not properly supported by sources?

  Do you mind if I ask you how much attention you paid to the Fox video clip?

  I transcribed it.

  The interviewer explicitly asks him "Did you kill the Taliban bombmaker?" Golsteyn nods his head, and directly answers "Yes".

  The interviewer asks him "You willingly offered up these details at the CIA?"

  Did you think his open acknowledgment of killing the Afghan was unsubstantiated? If so, does the transcript alter that opinion? Geo Swan (talk) 12:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

  • The material not supported by sources was totally obvious - half paragraphs of negative statements about this person not ending with any references. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Hmmm... It seems to me that the most commonly used method of referencing is to place a reference only once, per paragraph. Surely you have participated in AFD where those favoring delete have mocked the use of a reference for every sentence, calling the extraneous links redundant, and a kind of reference spam, and an attempt to trick readers into thinking the topic was more richly referenced than it actually was?

Consider the following paragraph, where only the first sentence is followed by a reference. The second sentences starts "According to the BBC". Since the reference that preceded it was to the BBC, readers understand that that reference applies to the second sentence of the paragraph, as well.

Golsteyn attracted the support of high profile supporters, including Congressional Representative Duncan Hunter.<ref name=Bbc2018-12-16/> According to the BBC News, Hunter called the charges a "'retaliatory and vindictive' inquiry into 'a distinguished and well regarded Green Beret'."

I am pretty confident that the vast majority of wikipedia contributors would regard that paragraph as adequately referenced.

I would still appreciate you being specific as to which aspects you think were poorly referenced. If you are too busy to read any of the article's references, how about picking the first passage that you think was not properly supported, naming it here, and asking for someone to explain how it was supported?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

This clip includes the footage from the 2016 interview, interspersed with narration from FOX's Pentagon reporter, Jennifer Griffin. The clip is just over 4 minutes long...

time stamp	speaker	speech
0:05	Brett Baer:	In tonight's whatever happened to segment, new developments in the case of an elite military operator accused of killing a Taliban bomb-maker.
0:15	Baer:	You saw his declaration, or confession, right here on Special Reports. National security correspondent Jennifer Griffin has our update tonight, from the Pentagon.
0:25	Jennifer Griffin:	The US Army has charged with alleged murder a once decorated Green Beret, who received a Silver Star for valor, but later admitted killing a detainee during an interview with FOX News's Brett Baer in October 2016
0:40	Baer:	Did you kill the Taliban bombmaker?
0:45	Golsteyn:	(nods) yes
0:46	Griffin:	Major Mathew Goldsteyn was a US Special Forces soldier attached to a Marine unit that faced heavy fighting in the Battle for Marjah in February 2010. He later acknowledged, during a polygraph, when he was applying for a job, at the CIA, that he had killed an alleged Taliban member, who they had suspected of planting a bomb that killed two marines, Sergeant Jeremy McQueery and lance corporal Larry Johnston.
1:10	Baer:	You willingly offered up these details...
1:13	Golsteyn:	right
1:13	Baer:	...at the CIA?
1:15	Golsteyn:	That is correct.
1:17	Baer:	And that is where it all starts?
1:19	Golsteyn:	(nods) Pretty much.
1:20	Griffin:	According to a Senior Defense official Golsteyn told the CIA he killed the Afghan offbase, placed his body in a pit and burned it, but reached by telephone Golsteyn told FOX News, "I made a lawful engagement of a known enemy combatant on the battlefield."
1:34	Griffin:	He says the rules of engagement were so strict, at the time, that they were only allowed to detain and process Afghans for drug crimes. Golsteyn says that, following the suspected bomb-maker's release, he tracked him down, and killed him.
1:50:	Griffin:	Golsteyn said he believed that, letting go of the insurgent, meant the man could target Afghans who were helping US troops.
1:55	Golsteyn:	If you construe a law enforcement mindset...
1:57	Golsteyn:	There's limits on how long you could hold these guys...
2:00	Baer:	(apparently paraphrasing) ...So we would pull these guys out. We would say "clearly these are enemy combatants... these are Taliban... these are bad dudes..." We'd pull them out, but we wouldn't have anywhere to hold them. So, eventually we would let them back, and they would cause terror to the community, again.
2:13	Griffin:	A Senior US Defense official confirmed to FOX News the Army's Criminal Investigation Division Command reopened the investigation, based on new evidence, that includes the Green Beret's public statements.
2:25	Griffin:	The Defense Department's Inspector General investigated the Army's original handling of the case, which found not enough evidence to prosecute Golsteyn after a six day hearing.
2:35	Griffin:	California Congressman Duncan Hunter, a former Marine, who served in Iraq, has championed Golsteyn case. He wrote the following letter to Army General Mark Milley, quote: "Golsteyn is an American hero - a true warrior, in fact. Why the Army is hell bent on destroying a combat hero's carerr is truly astonishing. I'm confident that Army CID has more important things to (sic) than investigate Golstyen again, and you both have the to fix this stupidity."
3:05	Baer:	What is it like going from war hero to accused war criminal? Are you angry?
3:11	Golsteyn:	(looks away, takes a deep breath, looks back at Baer) No.
3:16	Golsteyn:	It has been incredibly painful... and very difficult... over the last year, years, everyone who served with me, stood by me, and so (shakes head), it's over, and it is time to move on.
3:36	Griffin:	Sources tell me, that when Golsteyn admitted killing a man, in cold blood, on television, the Army investigators had no choice but to reopen the case.
3:43	Griffin:	Major Golsteyn says strict rules of engagement forced him to release the alleged Taliban bomb-maker, who had been fingered by an Afghan informant, and that he had no choice but to act, as he did. But those to whom I have spoken, here at the Pentagon, say he did have a choice.
3:58	Griffin:	And now Major Mathew Golsteyn has been charged with premeditated murder, and could face a death sentence... Brett
4:04	Baer:	Jennifer Griffin, at the Pentagon. Thank you.

• ONEEVENT applies. Delete the blp, replace it with a redirectt to the appropriate section on Operation Moshtarak (name may be a searchable term). --Masem (t) 15:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Masem, lots of RS are reporting that the way Golsteyn killed the prisoner looks like a war crime. Even FOX News has acknowledged experts at the Pentagon think it looks like a war crime. The IP contributor, and Nick-D, seem to be saying that the killing should be treated as an unsubstantiated allegation, and therefore BLP requires the article to be heavily stubified.

    I've asked for opinions, since Golsteyn openly acknowledged the killing, during an interview on nationwide TV, whether the policy barring covering unsubstantiated allegations really applies. Is there any way you could see your way clear to addressing that issue? Geo Swan (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

    • Just because lots of people think its a war crime doesn't make it a war crime. And just because he said he killed the person doesn't mean it was murder or a war crime, that's what the trial will be determining. What is presently said on Operation Moshtarak seems sufficient until the trial is held and more details can be determined, as much of this remains word of mouth of what happened. --Masem (t) 19:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I mostly agree with Masem. This is clearly WP:BLP1E, covered only in the context of the murder accusation, and, frankly, even the murder accusation isn't that high profile. And, frankly, that he said he killed the person isn't the be all and end all, considering the seriousness of the statement; the number of people that have said that they killed someone but then turned out not to, is not negligible. That said, though, there is an excellent chance Trump will interfere, in which case this will become noticeably high profile, so just deleting the article outright seems silly. I recommend, per WP:1E, that we rewrite the article to focus on the event, rather than the person, and see how it plays out over the near term; if there is a quiet acquittal or conviction, we merge it into Operation Moshtarak, if there is a pardon foofarah, we keep it as standalone. I don't see it being left as a biography that isn't actually about the person, though. --GRuban (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. Golsteyn is clearly notable, and at present is well beyond ONE EVENT territory, due in considerable part to the apparent intervention by Trump. I think it may have been anyway, but Trump's posting is enough to make it a national political matter. Possibly at some point we could call it Court Marital of Golsteyn , but the courtmartial has not yet taken place. It occurred during a specific campaign in a specific conflict, but the at does not mean it's only incidental to the campaign or the conflict--at least not presently, for it's being written about independently. To a considerable extent we go by the media, and they are devoting multiple separate stories to this. Without myself drawing conclusions, I imagine the general interest was initially because of the situation with respect to the Rules of Engagement, which would seem to make it a matter of general interest. Again without myself drawing conclusions, the involvement or threatened involvement by Trump makes it a general issue about command influence of a court martial, and the NYT and elsewhere ha ve discussed it as such. (I can imagine some of the editors here who keep trying to make as many articles on Trump as possible wanting to even split this into one article about Golsteyn and one about Trump's possible defense of him, but I think that's way excessive at least at present).

That leaves several questions. First, how much detail should we give--but this is one of the cases where the specific detail would seem to be necessary to describe the journalistic and historical interest. Second, whether we can call in murder, and we cannot until after a verdict (if I understand the charges, he has specifically been accused of murder, and if so we can say that. Similarly for war crime--we can say it has been reported as a war crime, for it has been. Third, how much emphasis should be given to the information about Swenson in this article. I think it should be included, but not in detail. The detail belongs in the article on Swenson.

I'm really puzzled by anyone calling this one event. I thing it would do as a classic example of when a possible routine investigation that might be originally thought of a 1E becomes of encyclopedic interest. I certainly knew of it from the NYT, and so have everyone else who pays attention to either the nYT or Fox, which between them probably includes everyone with any itnerest in US politics. It's one of the times when an objection to an article leaves me puzzling about the motives. BLP1E overreach has become very common around here To still call it 1E is totally uprooting the reason for the rule, which is to eliminate making articles about someone accused of a minor crime which happens to make the papers, on the grounds that this isn't fair for an encyclopedia , which is a matter of permanent record. It has more recently also been used as a reason not to cover some publicity-oriented coverage of someone winning a minor award. It doesn't apply to people who have been engaged as the central figure in matters which are of genuine public concern for reasonable grounds DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The reason I would consider it one event is because everything involved stems from the single incident, even if these happened at diverse times (between the Operation, between his CIA interview, and between Trump's involvement). There has been yet anything to show any notability for him outside of this entire situation, at least at this point. One point of matter that I see from briefly glancing at sources is very little care about anything about Golsteyn's life outside the event itself; compare this to some people that perpetuate significant crimes, that people try to dig into their past to understand why they did it, showing potentially some notability beyond the event. The situation with Golsteyn might change, just at this point, we should be more cautious about what to include in a vague situation. --Masem (t) 02:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Mathew L. Golsteyn - a summary on 2018-12-22

On December 18th I started this section to get other contributor's opinions as to whether the vague BLP concerns claimed for a large excision to Mathew L. Golsteyn were justified. Progress on the article has been paused, since then.

Only Nick-D weighed in, to defend the excision. Their defense was quite brief. I provided a response, to which they haven't responded.

Masem and GRuban both responsed with suggestions that the Golsteyn article should be redirected. While interesting - they don't really address the question as to whether the vague BLP concerns justified excising most of the article.

DGG weighed in, defending continuing to work on the article.

Yesterday CaptainEek came across the stubified version of the article, and made significant additions. I left them a heads-up about this discussion. Although they haven't weighed in here, I am inclined to count them as someone who doesn't see a BLP concern in continuing to work on the article.

I provided my reply to Nick-D's comment, the only person who defended the excision on BLP grounds. No one has responded to it. So, how much longer do I have an obligation to wait before carefully restoring the excised material?

My inclination is to go ahead and carefully restore the excised material, if no-one offers a further defense of the excision, in the next day or so. Geo Swan (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can necessarily stop you, but I still stress that per BLP1E and in terms of trying to stay neutral I think the content needs to stay in the operation article and kept to a minimum until something more resolves out of the situation. It's just at that edge I feel uncomfortable covering the person as a BLP until its clear from ongoing events that it was considered a crime. But that's not a hard line that anyone can edit-war over (eg: it is not acceptable to claim an exemption to 3RR to edit war over inclusion or not). --Masem (t) 15:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I caution you also about Swenson. Rereading the material, the only source is the Washington Times. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Masem, clarification please. You didn't say you thought the anon's excision was justified, on BLP grounds. Can I assume you are not supporting that particular excision, on BLP grounds?

WRT BLP1E, I agree with DGG. When an individual has on-going coverage, over months, or years, where RS report new details, I suggest a point comes where any initial privacy protection we extended to them, under BLP1E, should lapse. Similarly, when a previously unknown private person embraces being a public person, like Joe the plumber, shouldn't those initial privacy protections lapse? Didn't Golsteyn choose to be interviewed on national TV? Geo Swan (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Here, it's not about privacy, its providing undue focus on a person that we do or do not know is being treated as a criminal or the like. There was definitely an incident, who was involved is of no question, and that it happened seemed undenyable. But whether we should have so much focus on Golsteyn now is unclear. What if his action is deemed acceptable within US military codes or other international codes? Then so much focus as a negative is inappropriate, and he'd not really need an article. --Masem (t) 19:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand after being told by numerous other edtiors that you are in the wrong why you are continuing to push and spin everyone's answers. This is a BLP issue, from your edit history you shouldn't be editing in this area as competency is required and it appears you are lacking this. 24.53.119.203 (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• The individual using 24.53.119.203 is I believe, an indefinitely blocked contributor who has fallen back on sockpuppetry, to continue disrupting the project, as per this SPI archive. Geo Swan (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I've nominated this article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathew L. Golsteyn. Nick-D (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Mittu Chandilya

Stub out for numerousBLP issues. Especially the allegation into a scam, where the biographer was called in as witness, cited article poorly sourced. This is news, not encyclopedic biography. This page is better to deleted as the biographer BLP has no access to his page and requests to the creator have not been answered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronnyinblr (talk • contribs) 06:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Likening Ryan Zinke to the Teapot Dome scandal

An editor has edit-warred[7] to re-insert a header and text that likens Ryan Zinke, a scandal-plagued Trump administration official, to the Teapot Dome scandal, which is arguably the most prominent corruption scandal in US political history. The text is sourced to a couple of op-eds. There is one TIME article that's cited which explicitly says, "Depending on what the investigations ultimately conclude, Zinke’s exact place in the history of Cabinets marred by scandal is to be determined". The editor has been repeatedly notified of the insufficiency of the sourcing and the absurdity of comparing an official who has not been charged with any crimes (as of yet) to the most prominent corruption scandal in history. This strikes me as a clear-cut BLP vio. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Added six WP:RS sources making the comparison. User:Snooganssnoogans keeps changing his reasoning to eliminate this. First it was not enough sources, then it was no section warranted, and now WP:BLP.

Nobody in Wikipedia in these edits has said that Ryan Zinke is allegedly a crook or is about to be indicted, however reasonable that inference might be. Rather, many (at least 10 as documented in the article and on the article's talk page) news and other organizations have made the comparison. That is an incontrovertible fact, and should be noted in our article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I did not "edit war" and deny that allegation as untrue. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Calling out one example when the claim is that there is several is a bit of a POV (and by connection, BLP) issue. I don't question Zinke's case is being compared to Teapot, but the text in our article suggests there's more, so calling out one case seems to be trying to shoehorn in the name. As long as one or two other notable cases can be added, that should solve the issue. --Masem (t) 19:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. I was unaware of the one revert restriction on the article. I meant no offense, and did not deliberately edit way. I am done with the article and the talk page, and will let WP:Consensus control. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, on my talk page I was informed that the sanction banner was a post hoc addition to the article talk page, and that the accusation was wrong. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to use the comparison for the entire grup of matters involving Trump, but not for individuals. For example, NYT article being cited as support, merely mentions him. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Op-Eds do not fall within WP:RS. Just because there might not be legal liability because Zinke is a public figure does not mean the BLP policy can be intentionally violated because of political bias. JLaw220 (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Munir Awad, naming of persons irrelevant to his crime

I recently removed two names from the article about this convicted terrorist and tagged a third name as uncited, my edits were reverted.

The names were those of his 'spouse/ex-fiancee/partner' (it is unclear as to whether they are/were legally married under Swedish law) 'Safia Benaouda'. Her mother 'Helena Benaouda' who was head of a Muslim Council of Sweden, and who campaigned for the release of Awad and her daughter when they were both arrested in Africa in 2007. Her involvement in that earlier release campaign is not disputed, however no connection to Awad's later crimes in Sweden - for which he was convicted - is stated in the article.

I also tagged this sentence, relating to a document campaigning for Awad's release in 2007 from detention in Africa "the paper was co-authored by the spokesman for the MMRK (The Muslim Human Rights Committee), Kitimbwa Sabuni, who is related to Swedish Minister Nyamko Sabuni. This last sentence is wholly uncited as to either its facts (co-authorship), or the nature or relevance of the relationship between the two Sabunis.

I contend that there is no useful encyc purpose in naming any of these 4 individuals, since they have no relevance to the crime which justifies the Awad article and no connection to that crime is established in the article. Pincrete (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, the CTC article which connects Awad with others is authored is authored by Magnus Ranstorp and there aren't any greater levels of expertise on radicalism in Sweden. So the source is strong, among the WP:BESTSOURCES available. Ranstorp is a reseracher at the Swedish Defence University. The question is whether the usage of the source is according to guidelines. At any rate, I welcome 3rd party input and will happily abide by any consensus. AadaamS (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The MMRK paragraph has been re-sourced and some of the KS material removed as the PDF archive is not available anymore. AadaamS (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Three names (the daughter's and those of the two Sabunis), have been removed and I consider the present version accords with BLP. Pincrete (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Chris Stokes (director)

I just scrubbed some stuff from the article; the internet is full of what may be rumors on the various hip-hop sites, or they may be quite real. I hope a few knowledgeable editors will have a look and maybe update/improve the article. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Baraboo Nazi salute photo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article text is fine, it's the photo that I'm questioning. Here we have a recent group photograph where:

• The people are entirely private persons
• Who can be identified
• And who are minors, or some them anyway
• And who are doing something embarrassing and potentially reputation-damaging
• On the spur of the moment, apparently
• Which they're not proud of and would rather forget, or some them anyway.

That's way to many bullet points for my taste.

As to identification, the image is low-quality and you can't easily recognize the people directly, but you could pretty much recognize them if it's pointed out. Specifically, if 23 years from now you have "Red circle and arrow in [this photo] shows State Rep candidate John Doe giving a Nazi salute". Which is precisely the scenario I am concerned about here. Let's give these kids a break, shall we? Does this have to follow them for the rest of their lives?

OTOH, the article is about the photo, so one could say "Obviously it'd be nonsensical if an article about a photo didn't include the photo, and the article is legit and has passed AfD". OK but first of all the article is not really about the image in the same way that The dress or Taking a Stand in Baton Rouge or The Red Ceiling are about their images, where we are interested in the background of the photographer and the composition of the image and the equipment used and you kind of need to see the image. Here we could just say "the famous photo shows a high school class of about fifty kids standing on some steps, and most of them are or appear to be giving the Nazi salute" and you're not really losing any crucial info.

So you have a not-strictly-necessary photo in a marginal article, against what I see as the BLP violation of publishing a potentially reputation damaging photo of minors. To me it's an easy call, but what do you guys say? Herostratus (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• I’ve removed for now. There needs to be strong reasons to publish a photo like this of minors. No objection to restoring if there is consensus, but this needs to be discussed more broadly before being restored. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
• This is almost a case where even if this a reliable sourced thing (which I don't question), the lack of long-term enduring coverage of this coupled with all the BLP issues involved (even establishing the name of the school (just under 1000 students) that its almost better we didn't have an article on this at all. Minors (even if these are high school age) have much stronger privacy rights so we should say as little as necessary. (If anything, what is currently at the high school's page is sufficient - that it caused a stir but there was little that could be done due to minor's rights). --Masem (t) 03:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Masem, a group of teens dong something dumb in a viral photo is not worth having an article about, and may violate BLP even without the photo. I have PROD'd the article. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Update: PROD was contested, article is now ad AfD. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: "Paul Ryan's Super Pac" runs racist ads

Every single source that covers the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF) links the super PAC to Paul Ryan (multiple sources simply refer to it as "Paul Ryan's Super Pac"). The Congressional Leadership Fund (which is the highest-spending super PAC in House races) has earned a reputation for running racist or racially charged ads (and every RS that reports on this reputation notes that this is "Paul Ryan's Super Pac"). There is a RFC[8] on the Paul Ryan article where multiple editors argue that it's a BLP violation to cover the fact that the CLF is known for running racist ads because Ryan was not (as far as anyone knows) personally involved in crafting each and every ad for the Super Pac identified as "Paul Ryan's Super Pac". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Same scenario as the Gavin McInnes section above. Just because someone runs or manages an agency of that size doesn't mean they oversee the content the agency puts out; ultimately Ryan would have to answer for it if it was deemed a legal problem. But just because the Super Pac puts out ads that third-parties deem racist should not be reflective on Paul Ryan's bio page. --Masem (t) 00:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Ryan doesn't run or manage the CLF, nor is he a member of their leadership. And I haven't seen any reliable source report that Ryan has overseen, produced, directed or been personally involved in the CLF putting out racist ads, so it's not a legal problem for Ryan. However, I do agree it doesn't belong on Ryan's bio page. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

The sole reason why the CLF is the most powerful PAC in House races is because House Speaker Paul Ryan directs donors (per every reliable source) to the PAC. Ryan could kill the PAC or the change behavior of the PAC by outright condemning the cancerous racist ads that it puts it or by very simply directing donors to a PAC which does not put out racist ads. This is why every single news outlet describes this as a variation of "Paul Ryan's Super PAC." That Wikipedia editors are deciding, contrary to what all RS report, that what's important here is whether Ryan himself is legally listed as the chairman of the PAC or as the producer who creates these ads is absurd, demonstrates a failure to understand the role of PACs in American politics and the nature of politicians' relationships with them, and is a perfect demonstration of why WP:OR is a prohibited here. The notion that the chairman of the PAC or a board member has more influence on the PAC than Ryan is absurd - and if you or anyone else truly believe that to be the case, ask yourself why no RS mention these individuals when they run piece after piece about the CLF and its activities? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

That Ryan is connected to the PAC is fine, but adding the facts about the PACs racist as to the Ryan BLP page, without direct statements the day Ryan authorized, created, or was involved with the ads is coatracking. It is fine to discuss the racist ads on the PAC page, but not in Ryan's page, as the RFC have properly identified. --Masem (t) 04:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

You are using your opinion of why the sources say things to justify adding it to his page. I have yet to see a reliable source that says the CLF is the most powerful PAC in House races because Paul Ryan directs donors to the PAC. I also haven't see a single reliable source that says if he condemns the ads they PAC would change the ads. What source says: "This is why every single news outlet describes this as a variation of "Paul Ryan's Super PAC.""? If anyone is doing original research here it is you. The sources don't say he has anything to do with the ads, the sources don't say he has more influence than the chairman or a board member. The sources only say the two are aligned not that he has any control of the PAC. That is what the source needs to say. ~ GB fan 12:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Ryan has been criticized for the connection to the CLF. Columns and straight news coverage in Washington Post, New York Times, The Guardian and NBC News mention Ryan in connection with the Delgado ads. I think the proposed paragraph lays this on a little thick and should be trimmed, but reliable sources connect Ryan to the ads - and several of those reliable sources mention the CLF involvement in discussing his legacy as a politician - which suggests that this is important for his bio. Whether or not editors believe that critique is "fair" is kind of beside the point: Wikipedia reports controversies and editors aren't responsible for taking a side or determining who is right. Nblund ^talk 18:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Consider the line already present in the article on Ryan "The CLF has a reputation for running race-baiting ads." which summarizes the problem with the CLF and the racist ads, and doesn't seem up for debate. Of those sources, the first is an opinion piece (says so on the byline) so can't be used as fact, the NYtimes only names Ryan in passing, and the Guardian at least puts something that the association of Ryan with the CLF tarnishes his reputation. None of these give enough weight to go into specific ads and details on Ryan's article, though are far game over at the CLF. --Masem (t) 18:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

"doesn't seem up for debate." The line "The CLF has a reputation for running race-baiting ads" was removed from the Paul Ryan article with the edit summary that there was a "clear consensus" to remove to it[9] and it's no longer in the article. We are apparently only allowed to mention that Ryan is linked with a super PAC and nothing else about this super PAC, even though it's the most powerful super PAC in the country and is renowned for filling the air with cancerous racist ads. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's an opinion piece. I'll spare you the policy citation here, you know what I'm going to say. Lots of (straight news) reliable sources indicate that Ryan is affiliated with the PAC - although the exact nature of his affiliation is unclear (that's sort of the point of a Super PAC, after all), most of the coverage suggests that he had a major role in the midterm strategy. Opinion pieces in the Washington Post, Mother Jones, NBC, Huffington Post among others, argue that his affiliation with the group had some relevance to his legacy as a legislator. The affiliation is a fact, the moral culpability is a prominent opinion. It shouldn't be the center of the bio but it's hard for me to see how we would justify ignoring the fact that "his" super PAC raised record-breaking amounts of money in the midterms and spent it on ads that generated lots of coverage. Nblund ^talk 19:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Some relevant sources about the weird relationship that politicians have with super PAC[10][11], in this case Ryan and CLF. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, it's not an issue of saying he's associated with the CLF (that's clearly sourced), and that as per the indicated RFC, the existing text that says the CLF has run race-baiting ads is fine from the sources. It is the additional details on the specific campaigns that are unneeded on Ryan's page because no source directly associated Ryan with the creation of those ads. In other words, refering to the RFC, the bolded text is what cannot be added to Ryan to be compliant with BLP. What remains still points out Ryan's connection to the CLF and that it runs racial-baiting ads. The bolded text of the RFC can be added to the CLF page with no issues as well (and as well there mentioning Ryan's connection). But unless stronger sourcing can be used to say Ryan had a direct involvement in the specific ads in question, it is inappropriate to accuse Ryan of being associated directly with those ads. --Masem (t) 20:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Why is this even a question? Congressional leadership fund = fund related to congressional leadership, i.e. Ryan as pretty much every RS agrees. Guy (Help!) 19:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Can the CLF be described in any way whatsoever on Ryan's page?

The RfC about whether CLF's specific ads can be mentioned concluded with a consensus against including it. One editor insists that the RfC demonstrated no consensus for including any mention whatsoever of the CLF, despite 6 votes in favor of doing so in the RfC and only 4 against. And then there are two editors here (who did not vote in the RfC) who supported inclusion of a description of the CLF. So, now the issue under dispute is whether we can describe the CLF at all on Ryan's page.[12] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

That Ryan is connected to the CLF seems 100% fair to include given the RSes. It's just attaching the ad product of the CLF to Ryan that I felt was the problem. --Masem (t) 18:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Ditto. Calidum 18:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with the line "The CLF has a reputation for running race-baiting ads"? A few days ago, you said it didn't "seem up for debate", "was fine" and that the problem was getting into the weeds of specific ads that the CLF put out. That's the only thing's up for debate now (including a description of the CLF as the most powerful PAC in the House - which mindboggingly was removed). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that line can stay, it was the specific ads being called out that was a problem (too much emphasis on what the CLF was doing without knowing how much a role Ryan had in those specific campaigns). --Masem (t) 18:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, in the interest of time, I will put aside your mischaracterization of my concern and will simply restate it. I have no objection to the inclusion of the following sentences:

The Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF), a super PAC, has been closely linked and aligned with Ryan.] Ryan has directed major GOP donors towards the CLF.

I object to all of the language that you wish to include after that because it is POV coatracking that lacks encyclopedic tone.SunCrow (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Colin O'Brady wiki page - Defamatory and trolling on biography of a living person page

I am writing to report defamatory editing to the page Colin O'Brady. O'Brady recently completed a world record accomplishment for the first crossing of the continental land mass of Antarctica solo, unsupported and unaided. The New York Times tracked this accomplishment with six articles throughout the journey among many other media outlets.[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

O'Brady's accomplishment of the crossing has been widely tracked and reported on by additional highly respected sources including but not limited to: National Geographic [19] Associated Press, [20] NBS News, [21] Today Show, [22] CBS, [23] USA Today [24]

The accomplishment with all the proper citations is regularly edited and removed and replaced with the criticism only. The "controversy" that is currently on O'Brady's page is poorly sourced and cited with opinion pieces and social media links [25] [26] [27] including citations for articles that do not support the critics material and conversely, are in support of the accomplishment of O'Brady that is continually removed from O'Brady's biography. [28] [29] [30] [31]

O'Brady's page is being trolled and edited regularly by Murk and JSFarman in particular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Informed00 (talk • contribs)

welcome to wikipedia. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Informed00 is trying to make this wiki page acknowledge that Colin O'Brady's expedition in Antarctica is a universal accepted "world first accomplishment". It is correct that O'Brady's claim of the expedition being "the first unsupported, unaided, crossing of Antarctica coast to coast" was reported by various news sites. But since then the claim has been widely disputed by polar experts and explorers. As it is strongly disputed, it can not be seen as an encyclopedic fact.

Informed00 is wrongly stating that the "controversy" is poorly sourced. The dispute is sourced by referring to news media, exploration authority sites and social media: The New York Times [32], NRK [33] [34], Outside Magazine [35], Wider Outdoor [36], Explorer's web [37] [38] [39] [40] and social media (like Instagram [41] and Facebook [42]] [43] [44] [45]).

It is strange to consider the mentioning of a debate/dispute as trolling. Further more; it is natural to mention the debate on social media, as O'Brady chronicled his journey daily on just social media. The social media quotes are just referring to antarctic authorities like Børge Ousland, Eric Philips and Damien Gildea. In addition: it is not defamatory to mention facts about an expedition, or the debate around it. The page has no personal characteristics or other language that can be deemed as defamatory.

If someone is trolling, it must be Informed00, who on two occasions has deleted major parts of the page. And replacing it with a non-neutral homage of Colin O'Brady.

--Murk (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

You cannot use Facebook or Instagram posts to support contentious material about BLPs, but its certainly the case that at least from the NYTimes article there's clear controversy if he did properly complete a world-first. (Though as per most RSes that I see, most consider it a legit world-first, so we have to present it as such , and then those that argue he cut corners/etc.) --Masem (t) 18:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok. There is just one statement that needs a Facebook-reference, the rest is referenced elsewhere. I can remove the one that is not referenced well enough. On a general note; why do you mean that social media, as a modern platform for debate, can not be used as reference? What about presidents writing tweets, or social media movements like "#meeto"? Should we not be able to use "first hand sources", and expert opinions, even if they are on social media? Even if it challenges a claim of a BLP?

All authorities on arctic explorations that have all the information are questioning this as a "world first". We can not claim this to be a "world first" when the people who are experts say that it isn't. This "world first" is not a fact, it is an "opinion" -- and it should be described as one. --Murk (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Removed Facebook-references, and a statement from one polar explorer. --Murk (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Social media can be used for non-controversial elements, though they are primary sources and should be used cautiously. But you cannot state something controversial sourcing it to social media, particularly BLP related.

While I can see some do state this was not a world first, most RSes are considering as such, so it is inappropriate to try to frame it another way. We can't do much if our RSes are not taking into account what these experts seem to be saying, we can only treat that as additional commentary. --Masem (t) 19:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

In general: Why do you value the opinion of a journalist in a news paper more than that of an University professor on social media? Should not the integrity of the person be more important than the plattform where the opinion is told?

In this specific matter: it is certainly not appropriate to frame a claim as a truth. It is well known that definitions like "unsupported" and "unaided" in arctic exploration is under debate -- already before O'Brady went on his expedition. We can not demand that the media has deep knowledge of Arctic exploration, but we as an encyclopedia should weight experts and news media in a proper manner. O'Brady's claim should be conveyed as an opinion, since it is not a fact. The press release from O'Brady told the press this was a "world first", and they believed him --- and liked the story. Professors, explorers and other experts on the field say that it is not so. --Murk (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Social media in general are SPS sources and should be treated carefully, regardless who the author is. But on the larger point, it becomes a bit of OR for us to determine who are expert sources and to make up for things that media sources do not say because they aren't covering these expert sources. If they are well-established experts, the media should be fairly asking them to opine if the crossing was a record or not. If they are failing to do that, we can't take that mantle up ourselves. Clearly that there is doubt that this is a world first is out there in RSes, but we basically have to look to how those sources present it first and foremost. --Masem (t) 20:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Ryan Sweeting

Ryan Sweeting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia got a passing mention, but not in a good way..I found this accidentally, after reading this. For those who don't want to wade through a tabloid (I blame insomnia); the relevant bit is "Unconfirmed reports and an uncited entry on Sweeting’s Wikipedia page claim after this he became addicted to pain medication". Well, they got one thing right, it was uncited. Now removed, and the IP who put it in 6 months ago sent a message. Some more eyes on it might be an idea in case it comes back, or if anyone wants to try and find a reliable source for it. Curdle (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Describing clemency recipients as "convicted murderers" in the present tense?

Cyntoia Brown is the article I'm concerned about, and I'm not a legal expert but our pardon article defines it as government decision to allow a person to be absolved of guilt for an alleged crime or other legal offense, as if the act never occurred, which would seem to indicate that once she has been granted clemency we should then describe her with Cyntoia Denise Brown [...] is a victim of sex trafficking who was convicted of murder before later being pardoned rather than what the article currently says (Cyntoia Denise Brown [...] is a victim of sex trafficking and a convicted murderer). But then, not a legal expert, so I don't know, and am unwilling to make such a radical change without getting a second opinion. Thoughts? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The sources I quickly found didn't say she was pardoned; they say she was granted clemency. Her sentenced was reduced, but she is still in jail, and will be on parole when released. That is not an absolution. Discussion of differences here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Even if it was a pardon, I don't think it's a settled question in US law that pardons do what they are claimed to do in the wikipedia article. For example, recently former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio requested that his criminal contempt conviction be vacated, and the federal judge refused to vacate his conviction. Her reasoning was that a pardon exempts a person from all legal penalties from a crime, but it doesn't "blot out guilt or expunge a judgement". "A pardon carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it" (quotes from other rulings she uses to justify her own) [46]. Of course, Cyntoia Brown was never pardoned, she merely had her sentence commuted, so the nature of the pardon in US law is irrelevant in this case. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Kimberly Renee Dunbar

This article is about me and my name is not Kimberly Renee Dunbar It is Kim Renee Dunbar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:C501:6EB3:A85F:2D:3F91:46BB (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Because none of the reliable sources use "Kimberly", I have moved the article to Kim Renee Dunbar. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Gary Popkin

Gary Popkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I apologize if this is not the correct place to report what I believe is wrong with this article.

The majority of the article appears to be written by the individual himself. A section of the article that was written entirely by the individual, in the first person, without sources, had proceeded the External Links section before I removed it. The inclusion of the individual's entire bibliography and filmography also seems strange given his primary identity as a political candidate. I also question whether or not the individual is notable enough to warrant having an article on Wikipedia.

edecaudin (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd say it's a good place. Good edit:[47]. While not glaringly promotional, it's not a good article/BLP. It may merit deletion, but I haven't done any WP:BEFORE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Robert Devereux (civil servant)

Robert Devereux (civil servant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The text currently reads: Sir Robert John Devereux, KCB (/ˈdɛvəˌruː/; born 15 January 1957) is a retired senior British civil servant, who served as Permanent Secretary for the Department for Transport from 2007 to 2011,[1] and then the Department for Work and Pensions from 2011 until his retirement in January 2018, where he retired aged 61 with a £1.8M pension not before raising the retirement age for firefighters, police, nurses and other public sector workers to 67 and destroying their pensions entirely .[2][3]

The last statement of this paragraph is both subjective and malicious, and should be removed. I was prompted to look at this biography by a Facebook post so would suggest that there is a potential for the material to be re-inserted if the page is not locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.187.50.163 (talk • contribs)

It was added in this diff by an IP editor, without sources. It has been removed as it is completely unsourced info (about how much his pension was and the secondary claim.) --Masem (t) 03:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Horridly written "BLP", alas. I am uncertain that the use of a primary source for his salary even belongs. Collect (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the question is what's a primary source? The data was unsurprisingly repeated by secondary sources albeit without discussion of his salary considering it was far from from the top of the list or otherwise significant compared to the rest [48] [49]. Nil Einne (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Salary is one thing (I would expect the salary of a public/government employee to be open data in most democratic states, though I would only include it if secondary sources made an issue out of it). The issue at hand is the pension amount, which is not usually reported in the same manner. (And of course the claim he got this huge pension at the same time as ruining pensions for others). --Masem (t) 19:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Saad Uddin

Saad Uddin - No verifiability, content in the article is fictitious and fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.123.62.134 (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The article is sourced and has a photo. More and better reasons needed.--Auric talk 00:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

john dingfelder

Previous article for John Dingfelder had sources and was cited correctly. Individual, or representative for, is running for political office and continues to change article to be self promotion without any cited references or sources. The version being changed to is neither a Neutral point of view (NPOV) or Verified (V).

Link to diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Dingfelder&diff=877526024&oldid=877416208

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dingfelder — Preceding unsigned comment added by LocalTampaPolitics (talk • contribs) 21:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Looks very non-notable. Good AfD candidate. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Very much so. Will reply on the AfD discussion. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Vladimir Plahotniuc

After my intervention on Vladimir Plahotniuc page, the changes made have been canceled by user Gikü, arguing with blatant polishing, removal of negative coverage. After communicating with the admin, by mutual agreement, we came to the conclusion that the situation could be solved here.

In this regard, I present my actions in steps:

1. I have removed information that from the start gives a negative tinge to the page (such accusations should also have some notorious sources). Changes have been made based on Wikipedia policies (NPOV, BLP, MOS, RS)

• From

Introduction - Vladimir Plahotniuc (born 1 January 1966), is a controversial Moldovan politician, businessman, philanthropist, and accused but not convicted criminal [50] [51]

• In

Vladimir Plahotniuc (born 1 January 1966), is a Moldovan politician, businessman philanthropist[52]. Who here resorted to policy violation BLP???!!

The current format of the article contains summaries of accusations made against Vladimir Plahotniuc without clear evidence („...He has been accused by his foes over the years of multiple crimes, including human trafficking, but not formally charged…”)

According to politics Biographies of Living People "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our mission to be sensationalist, or to be the main means of spreading problematic affirmations about people's lives."

2. We have drafted the text in line with the NPOV and the MOS, removing the doubling of passages that have actually been returned (and this is not a wiki policy, it is obvious that it has not been analyzed !!!) and obviously come to emphasize negative aspects.

• From

Described by Forbes magazine as a "shadowy figure," Vlad Plahotniuc was denied the Prime Ministership of the country after Moldova's president declared that Plahotniuc lacked integrity.[53] [54]

• In (I removed, arguing that the information is found in the Political Activity Chapter) while maintaining the reference source:

On 13 January 2016 Plahotniuc was proposed for the position of Prime Minister of Moldova by the Democratic Party, but his candidacy was rejected by the Moldovan President, Nicolae Timofti. In an official statement, Timofti noted that "Plahotniuc fails to meet the criteria of a candidate for the post of prime minister." He further specified that among the conditions for prime minister, the candidates "integrity should not cause doubt."[55] [56]

3.On the segment ”The theft of the century” we have drafted / removed the duplication of information (the editing of the text, completing with information added by AlberPenfold) which in fact emphasizes the negative tendency:

• From

Plahotniuc has been named as central figure in the theft of over one billion dollars from Moldova's Central Bank. This accusation was repeated by the former Deputy Director of the anti-money laundering agency in Moldova, Mihail Gofman [57]. The main mastermind, according to the Kroll report, is a man named Ilan Shor, an Israeli-Moldovan citizen who ran a complex scheme to defraud three banks under his control – Unibank, Sociala and the largest of them all, Banca de Economii.[58] However, a near-miracle has occurred since 2014, when the EU and others cut off financial aid, thought to be vital to the poorest nation in Europe. A new government was sworn in and under severe pressure, managed to pull Moldova out of the depths in a very quick period of time. Investigations had been launched, arrested the perpetrators of the massive fraud, including the former prime minister, and secured some important convictions.[59] Plahotniuc has been named as central figure in the theft of over one billion dollars from Moldova's Central Bank. This accusation was repeated by the former Deputy Director of the anti-money laundering agency in Moldova, Mihail Gofman.[60] However, since 2014, when the EU and others cut off financial aid, a new government was sworn in. Under severe pressure, they managed to quickly pull Moldova out of the depths. Investigations, arrests and convictions of the perpetrators of massive fraud were launched, including former Prime Minister Vlad Filat[61] [62] [63], businessman Ilan Shor [64] [65], as well as the controversial businessman Veaceslav Platon.[66] [67] Following investigations, 1 from 14 billion lei was recovered in over two years.[68] Subsequently, Mihail Gofman said that the organizer of the theft of that billion is Veaceslav Platon, a person who knew how to orient himself in the banking system.[69] [70] [71] [72] [73]

• In

Plahotniuc has been named as central figure in the theft of over one billion dollars from Moldova's Central Bank. This accusation was repeated by the former Deputy Director of the anti-money laundering agency in Moldova, Mihail Gofman.[74] The main mastermind, according to the Kroll report, is the businessman Ilan Shor, an Israeli-Moldovan citizen who ran a complex scheme to defraud three banks under his control – Unibank, Sociala and the largest of them all, Banca de Economii.[75] However, since 2014, when the EU and others cut off financial aid, a new government was sworn in. Under severe pressure, they managed to quickly pull Moldova out of the depths. Investigations, arrests and convictions of the perpetrators of massive fraud were launched, including former Prime Minister Vlad Filat [76] [77] [78], businessman Ilan Shor [79] [80], as well as the controversial businessman Veaceslav Platon.[81] [82] Following investigations, 1 from 14 billion lei was recovered in over two years.[83] Subsequently, Mihail Gofman said that the organizer of the theft of that billion is Veaceslav Platon, a person who knew how to orient himself in the banking system.[84] [85] [86] [87] [88]

4. Exclusion of the subchapter (=== Criticisms of Business Practices ===), which has no place in any form in the Business Chapter, motivating that in Controversies Chapter is a whole paragraph about ”The heft of the century" (Which is the link between business and "the theft of the century"? "The theft of the century" is described in Controversies)

5. I have removed partial information about people's statements that can not be verified by bringing the text to a neutral position (NPOV, VER).

• From

Plahotniuc has been widely accused of having been involved in a business of trafficking women for prostitution. [89] [90] [91] While this has not been proven in a court of law, interviews with officials have revealed "in the 1990s he owned a sauna, where he provided businessmen and even diplomats with young prostitutes; Plahotniuc kept a collection of videos to blackmail people and push them to certain deals."[92]. There have been multiple, extensive articles covering these issues by reputable investigative journalists.[93] The New York Times reports that "He has been accused by his foes over the years of multiple crimes, including human trafficking, but not formally charged."[94] [95]

• In

Plahotniuc has been widely accused of having been involved in a business of trafficking women for prostitution.[96] [97] [98] There have been multiple, extensive articles covering these issues by reputable investigative journalists[99], however none of them had any valid evidence to support all the accusations. The New York Times reports that "He has been accused by his foes over the years of multiple crimes, including human trafficking, but not formally charged."[100] [101]

6. I have excluded the information on the case filed by the Italians on the INTERPOL segment. Argumentation: text editing, the link [102] has limited access to money laundering information, which casts doubt on credibility

• From

Interpol has been monitoring Vladimir Plahotniuc since 2007, and it was reported by Forbes that Interpol believe he is associated with Russia's biggest mafia, Solntsevskaya Bratva. Plahotniuc denies this.[103] The Italian police have also investigated Plahotniuc for money laundering.[104]

• In

Interpol had a case ID involving Plahotniuc's activities throughout Western Europe since 2007, and it was reported by Forbes that Interpol believe he is associated with Russia's biggest mafia, Solntsevskaya Bratva. Vlad Plahotniuc, disputed the information that his name would be in the Interpol documents [105] [106] [107] [108]

7. I did the editing of the paragraph about the organization of the crime against Gorbunțov, with the annexation of the sources containing his statements. I did not understand why this information was excluded by AlberPenfold and was not seen by the user Gikü. Emphasis was placed on the credibility of the statements of a person in detention, with a criminal biography than on Gorbunțov's statements.

• From

According to the respected Russian business daily newspaper Kommersant, Plahotniuc has been accused by a hired assassin of being behind the order to kill a Russian banker in London, German Gorbuntsov.[109] This accusation adds evidence to a previously developing story: Plahotniuc had long been accused of being linked to the "organization of the murder attempt on banker German Gorbuntsov."[110] The hired assassin, Vitaliy Proca (sometimes spelled Proka), had been turned over to Romanian authorities in 2013 from Russia for a separate hired assassination after negotiations of an extradition through Interpol.[111] Proca had previously accused Plahotniuc of arranging the assassination, noting, "Plahotniuc's hands are in blood up to his elbows.”[112] Soon after these statements were made, Proca's wife and brother-in-law were imprisoned, and his wife told the press that she was offered a deal by representatives of Plahotniuc to free them if Proca remained silent. [113]

• In

According to the respected Russian business daily newspaper Kommersant, Plahotniuc has been accused by a hired assassin of being behind the order to kill a Russian banker in London, German Gorbuntsov.[114] The latter rejects the information issued by the killer Vitalie Proca and claims that there are many signs leading to Renato Usatîi.[115]

This accusation adds evidence to a previously developing story: Plahotniuc had long been accused of being linked to the "organization of the murder attempt on banker German Gorbuntsov."[116] The hired assassin, Vitaliy Proca (sometimes spelled Proka), had been turned over to Romanian authorities in 2013 from Russia for a separate hired assassination after negotiations of an extradition through Interpol.[117] Proca had previously accused Plahotniuc of arranging the assassination[118]. Soon after these statements were made, Proca's wife and brother-in-law were imprisoned, and his wife told the press that she was offered a deal by representatives of Plahotniuc to free them if Proca remained silent.[119] Finally, Moldovan media were divided into two camps, and both camps have their own version of the case. In repeating lines, both for CrimeMoldova and for other media sources, German Gorbuntov said that Renato Usatîi is the one who wants his death, and Plahotniuc would have no reason to order his assassination.[120] --Jeremydas (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect information about me on Wikipedia Ram Bahadur Bomjon page (and yet again and again)

The article Ram Bahadur Bomjon mentions my name Zsuzsanna Takacs as one of the victims of Ram Bomjon. Yet the information given in the article is untrue and based on a very dubious new-age style personal blog source (https://lalitmag.com/the-eternal/) while there had bee published numerous serious Nepali and Western media articles about my case, which are accurate. Moreover, this very propaganda source writes this: "We already know from first hand accounts that stories about kidnapping, etc, are all false… I carry the wind that the universe blows." By this the person who edited the article wanted to manipulate with the readers and try to give a sense that my kidnapping, torture, beatings and rape were made up. I protest against Wikipedia using their pages as a propagnda tool for a cult which caused my all-life handicap and caused hellish suffering to me and my fellow victims! Please correct the untrue information as myself am that victim and know best and replace it with a quote from one of the below links. This Wikipadia article had been a tool of manipulation by Bomjon's followers repeatedly, always sticking inside some of their own sources to alter the very clear information from dozens of mainstream media links.

This whole paragraph is not true:

"In 2012 Nepal Police announced that they had rescued a Slovak woman from Bomjon's followers. The woman had been held captive for over two months.[14][15] A Slovakian woman called Zsuzsanna Takacs had been taken from a hotel by two men of Bomjon on a motorcycle and kept tied to a tree for three months, accused of practicing witchcraft to disturb the Boy’s meditation. When she was released she had a broken arm[16]. A week after her release, Bomjon's siblings accused him of holding his brothers captive overnight, and for beating one of his brothers and his sister.[17] Soon after, followers of Bomjon assaulted five journalists and destroyed their cameras after they had recorded one of Bomjon's sermons.[14]"

1, It was not the Nepali Police who rescued me! Nepali Police cooperated with Bomjon. I had been released only due to the pressure of media and my foreigner friends, and only after the 5 journalists had arrived to Bomjon's Maitri Puja to investigate my whereabouts (and their cameras were broken by them). So the chronology in the article is wrong: First journalists arrived, then I was released by Bomjon due to the pressure and not rescued by police. See also

2, I was not rescued from Bamjan's followers only, but from Bamjan himself! Followers did not act separately, but at the order of Bamjan and he was the main torturer.

3, I had been held captive 3 months from 28 Dec 2011 till 24 March 2012, not just "over two months".

4,I was not "taken from my hotel" as I did not even live at any hotel at that time, I lived in Simara's Buddhist monastery! I had been kidnapped from the highway road at Halkhoriya Jungle! See "She stayed in a local hotel for some time before moving to a monastery in Simara."

5, Bomjon kept his siblings hostage 5 days and not "overnight"

Two women held captive in Bamjan's ashram Bamjan's aides free Slovak woman Buddha's men detain two women Buddha Boy men detain two women One foreign and one Nepali woman held captive

ZsuzsannaTakacs (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Zsuzsanna TakacsZsuzsannaTakacs (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC) The Halkhoriya Times — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZsuzsannaTakacs (talk • contribs) 10:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

MAny of your link s do not seem to be working.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I also note this edit by you [[121]] at RSN, these all contradict some of your claims above.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Do we really need to name names of alleged victims of crimes in a case like this? Guettarda (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

No we do not need to, but that is not the issue here it is factual accuracy.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

ZsuzsannaTakacs, although that Talk page is quite long, activity there of late seems to be minimal. Perhaps that is the best place for this discussion? I suggest that you embrace the spirit of WP:BRD. That is, boldly make some edits and/or revert those passages on the page that you believe are not supported by reliable sources (see WP:RS), then engage in a civil discussion about those additions/reverts on the article's Talk page, from whence a consensus will (one hopes) be achieved. Give it a try. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, WP:Conflict of interest prohibits them from directly editing the article. Even though we have no way to confirm that the OP is who they say, for COI purposes we can take it on good faith, which brings that rule into effect. Otherwise BLPs can begin to look more like facebook pages than encyclopedic works. (For example, see: Malcolm T. Elliott, an article which is not a stranger to this board, having been recently gutted to the single sentence supported by the sources.) The real solution for a person who is the subject/victim of an article (or in any way linked to it in some intimate way) is to report the problems on the talk page, and if that doesn't get a reply, or if the problems are so egregious as to violate BLP policy, then bring it here for a wider audience. Seems overly bureaucratic, I know, but there are reasons for this. Zaereth (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I agree it's not prudent to name victims, children or family members unless they themselves are notable enough to have an article of their own (or else it's just a random name), or unless the name itself is somehow absolutely necessary to define the subject. In most cases, pronouns and general descriptors are enough.Zaereth (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

labtekwon

Labtekwon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NOT objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14A:600:7BA0:F5A5:8259:A7C4:22C9 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Nikolaos Koklonis

Nikolaos Koklonis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) looks like its been created and edited by the person whom the artcle is about if one looks at the talk page it can be seen that a username related to the user has made significant changes. The article is self promotion.

The article has been deleted by JzG as promotional. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Marc restellini

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Restellini

Is not a biography is an hagiographic tribute full of blind love,

All the related information needs to be updated and changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.169.235.159 (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

hmm..is it Love..or money? Created by a SPA who has not edited since, and added to by a series of IPs. Removed some of the worst promotional peacockery, and updated some of the information. Not sure how genuinely notable he actually is though; too much information about his purported unique techniques are credited only to his own website, and a few of the news articles appear based on interviews. Hard to tell as I do not speak French, and google translate has its limits. Curdle (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, after a bit of a search, there is enough out there that he is probably notable, (found several better articles in French, and in English as well) which makes deciding what to do about this article kind of awkward, as there are also quite a few problems with it. A large chunk looks to be direct copypaste from the subjects website, which has been in the article since it was first created.

There also seem to be competing interests at work; the subject has been working on what is said to be a definitive catalogue of the artist Modigliani's paintings. Some Ips are promoting the work, others appear to be trying to cast doubts on it. Apparently there was a big scandal a couple of years ago regarding fakes and faked catalogues of Modigliani's work, and various collectors are now afraid for the value of their investments. There also possible financial skulduggery linked to the collapse of museums etc.(unsure how much of this is genuine, coatracking or written by people attempting to discredit the subjects reliability). I dont really know enough about the art world to feel confident wading through it all, and unsure how much is even salvagable due to the massive copyvio. Curdle (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Ro Khanna

More eyes are needed at Ro Khanna, where Asaturn is editing to portray this member of Congress as a hypocrite because he accepts entirely legal campaign contributions from Silicon Valley executives. Pay special attention to the edit summaries, the talk page remarks where they speculate that I am a Khanna employee, and comments on my talk page, all of which make it obvious that this editor has an axe to grind. The editor is ignoring my concerns so it would be great if other folks can get involved. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

This editor posted a Google Docs screed on the talk page that calls Khanna a "neoliberal warmongering fracking pro-TPP pawn". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Asaturn, it's really quite simple. If reliable sources say "he takes money only from individuals", then that's what we report. If you want to take issue with those facts, you need to file your complaint with the newspapers/outlets that reported it. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not the one taking issue with facts. Cullen added unnecessary editorials to my additions in an attempt to downplay the facts of where Ro Khanna's individual (and 100% legal) contributions come from. The article for Ro Khanna reads like a puff piece. Read the talk page - I'm not the first person to say so. The article paints him as anti-PAC when (1) he takes PAC money and runs his own PAC in violation of campaign finance law, and (2) his regular contributions, while totally legal, are 94% from millionaires outside of his own district. If pointing this out violates the rules of Wikipedia, then the puff piece content painting him as anti-PAC and a reformer for campaign finance regulations need to be removed, as you are allowing readers to see one side of Ro Khanna without seeing the other, more hypocritical side. Asaturn (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that say Khanna "takes PAC money and runs his own PAC in violation of campaign finance law"? If not, you can't say it on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Is the FEC a reliable source enough for you? Note the person who filed the paperwork to start the PAC is named Ash Chopra. This person is listed as a former Goldman Sach's employee and Ro Khanna's 2014 campaign finance chair / host committee chair.

You're quite simply wrong on the facts. That FEC document clearly shows the formation of a candidate committee, not a Political Action Committee. See where the box is checked under "Type of Committee"? That's right, the section entitled "Candidate Committee." Where you claim the committee treasurer formerly worked is both unsourced and entirely irrelevant unless commented upon by a reliable secondary source. You clearly have an ax to grind here, you're either misinformed or willfully ignorant of the facts, and worse, you're weaponizing that ignorance in an effort to falsely depict a living person in blatant violation of several policies. I suggest that you step back and disengage yourself from this article before you're topic-banned or worse. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Wrong on "the facts," or your understanding of how the world works? This is nuts. The FEC document shows the formation of a candidate committee... which is a type of PAC. Wikipedia is a bad place for discussion when people are living in an alternate universe, as seen here. I'll step away and grab some popcorn while... 5? people randomly decide to block the public's attempt at showing Ro Khanna still accepts PAC money. Ash Chopra's LinkedIn lists him as a former Goldman Sachs employee (2000-2004) and the link I provided to that "invite" is Ro Khanna's own campaign website (hosted by NGPVan, a company anyone outside of Wikipedia would know as one of the top two providers for campaign websites in the USA). https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashuchopra BUT I WAS NEVER CLAIMING THIS IN THE ARTICLE SO WHO CARES? Are you going to now claim LinkedIn doesn't fit into Rule #5382989537 of Wikipedia nerds? Asaturn (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

You simply have no understanding of either campaign law or of Wikipedia policy. A candidate committee is not a "type of PAC." It is certainly a political fundraising committee, but it is emphatically not a "PAC." Please read our handy article on political action committees to be better informed about the law. And you are correct to guess that LinkedIn is *not* a reliable secondary source. Do you know how many LinkedIn pages are total bullshit? Calling other editors "Wikipedia nerds" for suggesting that you need to follow policies is not likely to result in a happy ending for you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

As for the Google Docs link, I didn't write it. It cites the FCC, OpenSecrets, Daily Kos, and numerous other reputable publications. I never said Ro Khanna was any of those things. Once again, Cullen is editorializing in an attempt to paint the facts I shared as biased or somehow "attacking" Ro Khanna. Asaturn (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

You may not have written it, Asaturn but you and only you posted that screed calling this person a "neoliberal warmongering fracking pro-TPP pawn", and by claiming that this garbage is a reliable source, you committed a BLP violation which you have not yet rescinded. You clearly do not understand either BLP policy or reliable source guidelines. You cannot edit articles like this unless and until you are scrupulous in complying with the applicable policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Wrong again. Your words, not mine. Please stop trying to characterize me as some sort of Ro Khanna hater. The document itself is full of links to government campaign data and reputable sites like OpenSecrets. The comments in the document itself are not my words. This game you're playing is getting old, and I have no idea why you're so obsessed. Asaturn (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, for whatever it's worth, the edits in question have nothing to do with the google doc you keep bringing up. I only brought that up when challenged for additional sources in side conversations. I have never used that document as a citation itself. The question at hand is whether I added correctly cited facts. I did: I linked to OpenSecrets' analysis of the FEC data for Ro Khanna's campaign. I simply shared the fact that the majority of his campaign funds came from outside of his district - an important distinction to make. Other editors have added the fact that Ro Khanna receives the majority of his funding from CEOs in tech and other industries. Is sharing this biased or pushing a POV? The issue here is that editors of this page are attempting to push the agenda of the Ro Khanna campaign and paint him as a reformer. It is the duty of this encyclopedia to contain relevant and important information. The facts of where Ro Khanna gets his campaign funding are not only important, but very relevant when you consider the fact that he is sold as a campaign finance reformer. As I said elsewhere, if this needs to be moved to a new section on his article, I'm happy to do that. But do not misrepresent my edits in an attempt to push your own agenda here. Asaturn (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I invite and welcome any uninvolved editors and adminstrators to scrutinize this situation to independently decide who is pushing an agenda here. I welcome their conclusions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I invite and welcome anyone who has spent fewer than 24 hours in the last 2 days on Wikipedia to independently look at what Cullen is claiming I said vs. what was actually edited on the Ro Khanna article. I'm not the one pushing an agenda here. Asaturn (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I have given Asaturn the DS alert for BLPs. Stating (as was done above) that a named politician has violated campaign finance laws without RS support is clearly a BLP issue. EdChem (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

References

I have never said that in the article. That was Cullen's words, not mine, based on his interpretation of a list of sources I had previously shared. Nowhere in the article did I claim laws were violated. This is ridiculous and people are not understanding the situation. Asaturn (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Rachel Riley

Rachel Riley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Page has seen an influx of new editors with rather strong views. The subject has recently spoke out against antisemitism, and subsequently George Galloway criticized her and Riley responded. It seems that Galloway (and others in the same circle) are actively addressing the Wikipedia page of Riley in social media - Galloway himself retweeting posts on Riley's Wikipedia entry, and a search on twitter for Riley+Wikipedia coming up with some alarming results. The page has seen edits such as this to her nationality (and occupation) and this smear, as well as strong POV assertions, Jew (and half-Jew) labelling, etc. Additional eyes appreciated. Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

You want page protection not blp. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Darren Sproles

Darren Sproles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bio has been messed with, clearly false into input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.249.55 (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Simple vandalism; no action needed here. —C.Fred (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Priyanandanan

Person is the target of targeted online/offline harassment (news). Article Priyanandanan has received abusive edits from multiple IPs. See Special:Diff/878015054/878333717. I have protected the article on mlwiki, requesting the same here. -- Raziman T V (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Juan Guaidó

Juan Guaidó (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Juan Guaidó never took part in the 2018 presidential elections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Venezuelan_presidential_election — Preceding unsigned comment added by IngmarJGauger (talk • contribs) 20:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Judith P. Hallett

The re-addition of the “Controversies” section to the entry on Judith P. Hallett seems to me to violate some of the BLP policies- specifically, it is poorly sourced, it seems to be an attempt at continuing ongoing disputes, and it’s not terribly relevant to the reasons for her notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DidymusHirsch (talk • contribs) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, and it does violate BLP policies; this matter was settled on the BLP noticeboard at this time last year when the material was first added, and after the BLP noticeboard discussion, the material was removed. The archived discussion is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive266#Judith_Hallett

The re-addition is of the same material, at exactly the same time of year, added by an anonymous editor, suggests it is the same editor using a different IP address. It's unrealistic to consider this good faith editing and should be considered page vandalism. Its removal is clearly the correct response. If it reappears is there something more that we can do? Claire 75 (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

that link shows a previous consensus to remove the content, just remove it on sight, keep your eye on it, ten months has passed since it was last added so it's not at a level really requiring page protection yet imo. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Is there some way of putting this on an automated watchlist that will e.g., flag anonymous changes? Frankly I don't have time to continually watch the page for vandalism; it's a very poor use of any editor's time? Claire 75 (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

You could ask at page protection. wp:rfpp Govindaharihari (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Pending changes might be suitable here. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Intent of BLPPRIMARY

• WP:BLPPRIMARY

Hi, simple question. So, there's a dispute over this edit. The edit claims that a local government Ethics Board investigation was suspended due to a law enforcement investigation. This claim is directly supported by the source. The source is a public statement made by a government official (Niquelle Allen, Director of the Office of Open Government), as found in a public record of an Ethics Board meeting. This is a relevant, uncontentious factual update to information already discussed in the article. However, it is being blocked on the basis of BLPPRIMARY, which says: "Do not use ... public documents, to support assertions about a living person." I find it hard to believe that this kind of uncontentious edit cannot be made simply because it was found in a public record, but that is what the text seems to suggest. What is the actual intent of this clause, and does it really apply in this situation?  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  22:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• This is similar to the verdicts question we discussed on the BLP talk page a few weeks ago. It is a question of WP:UNDUE: if there is not coverage in reliable secondary sources, there is a very valid question as to whether or not we should be covering it at all. If there is coverage in these sources and they appear to err (which can be common in reporting on this type of thing) quoting the primary source to supplement the secondary source should be fine. The intent is not to have people digging around in court records to find dirt on people and also to enforce NPOV/UNDUE in BLPs by requiring secondary coverage. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Charles Glasser

Charles Glasser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi everyone, it's Charles! I'm looking for help with my page. Some rando set it up, there was some discussion out there about it being "paid for" (NOT!) but the point is the page is really incomplete and doesn't give a full picture. Of course, I know it's not a sales brochure, but we have the same interest: accurate and complete information for the public. Is there a Wiki editor who is willing to help? I can provide solid, verifiable info and sources for what's missing. Charles Glasser

www.charlesglasser.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C:C301:179:D0B0:93DA:3BD7:EAF5 (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Glasser, and welcome. Just a brief note of caution that it can be tough to be in close contact with your Wikipedia page, as we follow policies that might not always lead to your preferred page. That being said, I swung through quickly and it looks like much of it is cited to reliable sources, which is good! While we appreciate your input, and can cite to you for some small, noncontroversial matters, any major information should come from reliable third parties. Best of luck to you. Dumuzid (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your kind response, Dumuzid. I wouldn't ask you to cite to myself, that just doesn't seem clean. I have litigated some important free speech cases that are missing and can provide court papers (about as reliable third party as it gets!) There are also some television clips which speak for themselves, too. I can provide links for those. There are several photos of me in the public domain: what's the best way to get them included? I want to do everything by the book, of course. Can I send you a file of the changes and links? Thanks so much for your help. Charles Glasser

2601:8C:C301:179:D0B0:93DA:3BD7:EAF5 (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Chip St. Clair

Chip St. Clair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This entire article reads like a BLP nightmare - many contentious claims all based on primary sources with no specific claims supported by inline citations. The article was created by a single-purpose account that has been used solely to promote St. Clair and his book over several years. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Fully agree. And even trying a search on his name brings up nothing in the news and no immediate usable RSes in the first several pages of a regular Google search. Sending it off to AFD. (And fully agree that the creator, @Chants75:, likely has COI with the subject, if not the subject themselves. --Masem (t) 00:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Also tagged the book article The Butterfly Garden for the same reasons. --Masem (t) 00:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Howard Graham Buffett

My edit was removed for being a 'promotional paragraph', however the cited article in question is an important story regarding the use of personal wealth in the middle of the contemporary border debate. The source that is under question, The Phoenix New Times, is a widely circulated free weekly publication in the greater Phoenix area and has a long record of breaking important local and regional news. The Phoenix New Times saw fit to publish this article in two parts on the cover for two weeks in a row. The article in question can be found here:

https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/howard-buffetts-warren-buffet-son-border-war-cochise-county-11103225

The diff can be found below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Howard_Graham_Buffett&curid=3489862&diff=878728708&oldid=878634617

Switters765 (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

If you don't see how Part two of this incredible story is due out later this week! is promotional, I can't help you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

That one sentence was removed. No need to get snippy. I'm new to this. I have no connection to the periodical or author, just think it's an important story.Switters765 (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

That sentence is why the paragraph was removed; it looks like you've restored the rest of the content. I'm not sure what other concerns you have that require this noticeboard's attention. You should discuss any editorial concerns (such as if someone objects to including this material at all) on Talk:Howard Graham Buffett. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry - I initially posted this in a new section.

Some initially promotional content was added to the Media section of Howard Graham Buffett including the phrase 'Part two of this incredible story is due out later this week!'. I reverted completely and my reversion has been reverted but that offending phrase removed. [version of BLP prior to my revert, linking to Media section]

Rather than revert again - I don't want to get into an edit war - I have modified the language to reflect the uncertainty express by the letter of the report, although it strongly implied impropriety. I suspect this is still not suitable under WP:BLP and I'm tempted to be WP:BOLD, but would rather an independent editor assessed this rather than have me engage in an apparent edit war with a relatively inexperienced editor. I'm not particularly happy with my modified description that the report implied rather than firmly alleged certain behaviors of Buffett, but I don't think it's worth the time to pore over its wording if the source isn't WP:RS anyway.

From the Phoenix New Times article, it appears to be a weekly tabloid, but this may reflect only the paper format used in the presses, not necessarily implying 'tabloid journalism' which WP:BLP rules summarised in the banner above the Edit box warn about. I didn't find a discussion of Phoenix New Times (other than its blogs section) in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, otherwise I'd have removed it again citing that decision.

I would welcome an independent editor's input on this, or a suggestion that I take this to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard Dynamicimanyd (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Red Shirts (United States)

Red Shirts (United States), an article about a 19th century neo-confederate organization, was edited to state it was "revived" (and other changes) [122] and then edited again to add a wikilink to a BLP as the leader. [123] No sources provided in these edits. I have reverted, but out of an abundance of caution would appreciate a more experienced editor reviewing as I'm not sure if this is a "BLP issue" or not. Thank you. Levivich? ! 06:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks like an attempt to soften the presentation of an historic racist organization and I don't see a BLP dimension. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is a BLP issue. If you name a BLP (in this one born in 1951) as the present day leader of an organization (any organization, let along one like this) - you need a proper source.Icewhiz (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The living person was inserted erroneously into the article by the IP. The removal of the living person was appropriate but means that the article no longer has a BLP dimension. Simonm223 (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Howard Fishman

Howard Fishman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi Friends,

This page is about me and my career, and was flagged for "multiple issues" a few years ago. Since then, I have tried to address these with careful edits using wiki suggested standards, but the "multiple issues" box has remained at the top of the page. I sense that it has not been reviewed since these issues were first cited, and would appreciate any help in getting the updated content approved. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisteriatree (talk • contribs) 14:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Reviewed, it has been improved imo, so I have removed the headers as - 'three years ancient' any editor please feel free to reassess and replace or update, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Jesse Brown (journalist)

• Jesse Brown (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Canadaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Midlandino (talk · contribs) has recently added unusually large criticism sections to our article on Jesse Brown and the associated podcast Canadaland, accusing Brown of falsifying stories and many other associated problems. The sourcing used is fairly low-quality, and includes several allegations sourced to Twitter or other self-published sources. I've trimmed some of the worst BLP offenses from Brown's article, but more persist in the Canadaland article and both need to be examined to ensure the welter of op-ed criticisms present are weighted appropriately and presented in accordance with WP:BLPSTYLE. Any help appreciated. —0xf₈e₈ (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia. A single purpose account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Midlandino whose only purpose appears to be to add any and all negative content about this living person, a journalist. I would delete the content and block the account, you can do whatever you feel is correct within WP:Policies and guidelines Govindaharihari (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

As an update, I have reverted Canadaland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadaland to what I investigated was an historic stable version Govindaharihari (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Steven Gundry

The text of the reception section of this article currently reads:

T. Colin Campbell, a biochemist and advocate for plant-based diets, noted that Gundry's 2017 book The Plant Paradox contained numerous poorly supported scientific claims and that it did not make a "convincing argument that lectins as a class are hazardous." Robert H. Eckel, an endocrinologist and past president of the American Heart Association, stated that Gundry's diet advice was "against every dietary recommendation represented by the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Diabetes Associationand so on" and that it was not possible to draw any conclusions from Gundry's own research on the effects of lectin-free diets due to the absence of any control patients. Writing in New Scientist, the food writer and chef Anthony Warner noted that Gundry's theories "are not supported by mainstream nutritional science" and that evidence of the benefits of high-lectin containing diets "is so overwhelming as to render Gundry’s arguments laughable". Gundry sells supplements, including some costing $80 per month, that claim to protect people from the supposedly damaging effect of lectins.] Today's Dietician noted that "Although the research on lectin ... is still emerging, preliminary studies have revealed potential health benefits of lectin consumption and minute evidence of harm."

I believe having a "reception" section in the article of a person is dubious from a BLP perspective to begin with (would be better reserved for his book than the article about him) but the context in when the sentence "Gundry sells supplements, including some costing $80 per month, that claim to protect people from the supposedly damaging effect of lectins" appears I find particularly egregious as it seems to heavily imply that Gundry is inventing panic to sell supplements. relevant discussion on talk page . - Scarpy (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Steven_Gundry#Profiteering_accusations for prior discussion between myself and Scarpy, where there are citations supporting the information about supplements. There are 5 reliable sources who thought it worthy of mentioning, 4 of which mention the cost. Including that information does not "heavily imply that Gundry is inventing panic to sell supplements" and it would be inappropriate if it did, despite the fact that the sources do actually imply it. The section would be better in the author section as it is only applicable to his writing and not his time as a heart surgeon, it used to be like that but IIRC it was moved in an attempt to make the article more neutral. SmartSE (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Smartse: What you're saying here is completely irrelevant. I'm not questioning that this is cited. the question is in the context of a BLP article, (1) does it make sense that the largest section is titled "reception" and (2) if you're going to have a "reception" section in a BLP article does it make sense that it's thinly veiled character assassination, rather than say an encyclopedic summary of of criticism of his book (perhaps even with a section titled as such). The only place where this would belong is in a article about his book (and even there it's questionable). If he's not notable enough outside of his book, the his article should be deleted rather than being a surrogate battleground for a debate about lectins and supplements. - Scarpy (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Kidnapping of Jayme Closs

Could we have some more outside eyes here and on the talk page re: WP:BLPCRIME and some other issues surrounding linking to living murderers who did not commit the crimes in question in see also sections. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, can we please get some more eyes on this discussion (Talk:Kidnapping of Jayme Closs#Joseph E. Duncan III)? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Also on Talk:Kidnapping_of_Jayme_Closs#Presumption_of_innocence_vs_facts, which is actually what motivated me to post here more. The see also thing needs more eyes, but discussion on the applicability of BLPCRIME is the more significant dispute from a policy perspective, IMO. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not see a similar crime as tangentially related, and so it should not appear in See Also. I am somewhat aware of meta-lists of, for example, mass-murderers, or living American criminals. Presumably the link would be proper on one such list. Similar does not mean tangentially related to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 01:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Should we include any mention Tulsi Gabbard's connections to Chris Butler in her entry?

...and, if we mention Butler, how much discussion is appropriate? I proposed a one sentence mention in this edit. But editors have disputed that any mention of Butler is WP:DUE.

Background: Butler's group is an offshoot of the Hare Krishna movement. Gabbard's parents are both high profile followers, and Gabbard herself has described him as an important spiritual leader who shaped her Hindu beliefs. Butler's group has been accused of cult-like activities and there has been speculation that his views and political influence shaped her early career.

Coverage: Gabbard's only been a national figure for a short time, but the Hawaiian press has covered this throughout her career. A story was picked up by the Huffington Post in 2015, and the Butler relationship was the central focus in a 2017 profile for the New Yorker. It has not been the major focus of coverage since she announced her campaign, but it has been mentioned on Vox.com, Washington Monthly, and the Honolulu Civil Beat in the last few days. Nblund ^talk 16:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of Tulsi Gabbard but this looks undue to me. Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

To clarify: do you mean any mention of Butler at all is undue? I'm not proposing that we have a whole section calling her a cultist - but the article already details far less noteworthy aspects of her religious views. Nblund ^talk 17:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sort of on the fence here--my gut is to side with Simonm223, and say it's just undue. But there is some pickup in some major RSes and so maybe a single sentence within the discussion of her religion would make sense. Sorry I am not much help today! Dumuzid (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It's weasel-wording. "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." The implication is as you say that Butler's views and political shaped Gabbard's early career. I think it is best to wait and see if the cable networks and quality newspapers run with the story when we will be able to fairly present it. I don't think the role of the article is to bring to public attention information that most people would not find out about through these sources. TFD (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: As it stands I'd say talking about her religious background is undue except wherein there is something notable about it that is reported in reliable sources and shown to have lasting significance. Her having a vague connection to a religious leader who in turn has ties to a sect of Hinduism with a history of being aggressively missionary and was subsequently labelled a cult in North America is... not... independently notable. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

How are we assessing notability here, exactly if not by looking at the reliable sources have covered it in depth? The article already discusses her religious views in some detail: we know that she's a Hindu who follows Gaudiya Vaishnavism, but she's a westerner who has never been to India. That's extremely atypical outside of the Hare Krishna movement. I think the implicit concern is that it is inherently scandalous to say she was involved with a new age religious movement, but I don't think that's actually the case. Lots of elected politicians have somewhat unusual religious backgrounds. It's also not really a policy-based reason to refrain from mentioning a useful piece of biographical context. Nblund ^talk 18:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

We assess notability using Balancing aspects, i.e., by assigning "a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." In this case the material about Gabbard is what is published in network cable news and quality newspapers. And we generally ignore "isolated events, criticisms, or news reports." So a story that other publications fail to pick up or just give passing mention to lacks notability. I notice that Aseem Shukla of the Hindu American Foundation rebuts the claims made in the New Yorker article. (See "When The New Yorker Otherized Tulsi Gabbard’s Faith." One of the keywords is Hinduphobia.) That could explain why mainstream media and Democratic opponents have ignored the criticism. TFD (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

First, the admiration in the New Yorker article did not seem to be uni-directional, so I would say Nblund's proposal, while factual, was oriented. If I've understood what I've read on the TP, Butler has watched her grow up. We'll see if wider theological issues or the innuendi surrounding top-sekret nefarious influence will have legs outside of certain echo-chambers. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 21:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

There's also an article in Honolulu about the New Yorker article by senior editor, Don Wallace, "Did Tulsi Gabbard’s National Ambitions Just Suffer a Political Hit? A “NEW YORKER” MAGAZINE PROFILE RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT A CIRCUMSTANTIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH CONTROVERSIAL SPIRITUAL MENTOR CHRIS BUTLER—BUT ALSO SPURS CHARGES OF RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE. It is interesting that he says that Mr. Gabbard's was a follower before Butler set up the Science of Identity Foundation. I guess that's one reason Balancing aspects is a policy. It saves us from extensive research to evaluate claims. TFD (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow, are you saying that contradicts some other aspect of the reporting? They were followers both before and after Butler split from ISKCON. Nblund ^talk 15:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

They were never adherents of Butler's organization, according to the sources to the senior editor at Honolulu. The article in the New Yorker is factually flawed and bigoted according to sources that have commented on it and the underlying story has received no attention from Gabbard's opponents or mainstream media. There is no policy based reason to use it. TFD (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Where are you reading that they were never adherents? It says they've been linked to Butler for years and that they "signed on" all the way back in the 60s. Honolulu magazine's own coverage says that Mike and Carol Gabbard were listed as "teachers" at the Science of Identity Foundation in the 90s - so are you saying that they've retracted their past reporting? Nblund ^talk 20:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the source. It said that there was evidence that Tulsi Gabbard's fiance or top advisers were ever adherents to Butler's teachings. But you need to provide a policy based reason for including this material. Articles about prominent political figures are not intended to bring to public attention matters that mainstream cable and broadsheet news ignore. Incidentally you never commented on the accusations of bigotry in the New Yorker article. TFD (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The assertion that broadsheet/cable news coverage is required is not mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia's guidelines. I think you would be hard-pressed to find that level of coverage for Gabbard's vegetarianism or the statement that she follows Gaudiya Vaishnavism - both of which are mentioned in the same section. "Local news doesn't count" would make it nearly impossible to write BLPs on the vast majority of congress members.

I'm sensitive to the concerns about "othering" her, which why I simply noted that she praised his spiritual guidance in the context of a paragraph discussing her religious views. It's worth noting that you called Butler's group a cult and insisted that this was negative information. There's a whiff of bigotry in the assumption that it is inherently scandalous to say that Gabbard praised a new age guru. Nblund ^talk 21:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Her vegetarianism is an other "other stuff" argument. I asked you for a policy based argument. Incidentally, it is a plersonal attqck to accuse another editor of bigotry. The fact that your source has come under attack for bigotry is no excuse to throw around your own accusations. TFD (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You asked for my opinion: I basically agree with that editorial that the blithe assertion that Butler's group is a cult actually is kind of bigoted. I am opposed to saying that in the entry, and I don't think we should try to edit under that assumption. Instead, we should treat this as a noteworthy but non-scandalous fact about her religious beliefs - which are already a significant part of her bio.

WP:DUE questions inevitably involve some degree of comparison. You are claiming we can only cite coverage in "mainstream cable and broadsheet news" for Gabbard's entry. I'm pointing out that that standard seems kind of made up and impractical: it's clear that most articles aren't written that way, and applying it would require us to delete large amounts of unambiguously encyclopedic information from this entry. Gabbard's religious views are clearly an important part of her bio, and they are already discussed in some detail in the article - which mitigates concerns that a single sentence will be undue in proportion to other aspects of her bio. Nblund ^talk 00:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

(It'a not WP:DUE but WP:BALASP which applies. One covers opinion while the other covers facts, although they are both part of WP:NPOV. However, the principles are the same.) If you think that current policies are inadequate for writing articles the way you think they should be, then you need to change the policy. This isn't the page to do that. TFD (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Cool. It's kind of a moot point, though, because neither policy subsection says anything about only covering stuff that shows up in cable news or broadsheets. I'd be amazed if any article adheres to this standard, but I look forward to seeing you consistently apply it in future content disputes. Nblund ^talk 01:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

David Olshanetsky

David Olshanetsky incorrect information unreliable sources too obscure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.95.206 (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you specify what is incorrect, so it can be fixed?--Auric talk 17:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Most of the information is exaggerated and the tumblr popularity claims have no sources, it should be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.95.206 (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Harmeet Dhillon

Harmeet Dhillon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A biased editor is removing crucial information from Harmeet Dhillon's Wikipedia page even though there is nothing controversial about the edits. Specifically:

|language=en}}</ref> A prominent conservative blog named Powerline Blog called Dhillon "dangerous" and argued that her appointment to the U.S. Department of Justice would be "a shocking betrayal of conservative values." Dhillon has a history of suing individuals to suppress their freedom of speech: for example, she has filed a frivolous lawsuit against an anonymous blogger simply because he used her photo in a blog post. Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus brief against Dhillon, and the lawsuit was dismissed. Dhillon was criticized for her self-serving and meritless lawsuit: "the plaintiff in this case should have known better than to waste the court’s time on such an outrageous claim." The federal judge found Dhillon's claims to be "speculative and conclusory" and dismissed Dhillon's lawsuit without even granting oral argument.

A. The editor is not allowing the introduction of basic information about the ruling of a federal judge. B. The editor is arguing that "Powerline Blog" is a primary source, even though it isn't. C. Electronic Freedom Foundation is a bipartisan, widely respected organization.

References

• Probably because 1) we don't use blogs as sources for contentious material about living persons, 2) a brief filed by the EFF is a primary source, which we also don't use for contentious material about living persons, and 3) the entire passage is written like a Facebook rant from your aunt. GMG^talk 20:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this "impartial" and condescending input. Wikipedia cites blogs all the time: technically, even some news agencies are basically blogs (for example, Gizmodo's publications). Also, are you arguing that a federal judge's opinion is not worth the citation? Opisthocoelicaudia66 (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree with all of GMG's points. BLPs require better sources. O3000 (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I too agree with GMG. As a Californian who pays close attention to politics, I am quite familiar with her and disagree with her about almost everything. But this biography must comply with BLP policy, and this content in its current form does not comply. The notion that Powerline is an acceptable source for citing contentious material in a BLP is ludicrous. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

It's nice to see political bias infecting this discussion. Jezebel isn't a blog, but PowerLine is? Powerline is not an acceptable source, but Jezebel is? Removing a federal ruling from the page because it doesn't suit the discussion? OK then. Opisthocoelicaudia66 (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't comment on Jezebel or Powerline, since I don't know much about either of them. But there's a Wikipedia policy that warns against the use of primary sources, and explicitly forbids the use of court records to make claims about living persons. From WP:BLPPRIMARY: Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. You relied on a court record and documents from a group that filed a brief opposing her for most of the text you attempted to add. Those are not acceptable sources for content making controversial claims about a living person. If the issue was so minor that no reliable independent sources reported on it, then it shouldn't be in her biography. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Note that the OP has been blocked as a  Confirmed sock.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Troye Sivan

Troye Sivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editor Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has now twice removed an established reliable source at Troye Sivan stating Sivan is in a relationship. Their justification is that this isn't a "recent" source (the source is approximately one year old).

Could someone please confirm we would never remove a reliable source verifying someone being in a relationship, or the statement that they are, simply because the source is X days/weeks/years old, without (of course) new sources that provided updated information? (for interest's sake, it is simple to find more recent sources that confirm the relationship although their use should not be necessary because relationships do not automatically "expire" as this particular editor seems convinced they do). —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

"has been romantically linked to" is true to what we know: at one time it was true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 03:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• Well, editor who forgot to sign your post, if you can provide a recent/current source for the claimed relationship, why don't you just put it into the article rather than wikilawering about WP:V and BLP requirements? When we're dealing with "internet celebrities" and other folks at the low end of the notability scale, reliable press coverage of their "relationships" is happenstance at best, and there's no reason to believe that something said more than a year ago remains true today. Hell, I know Personally a notable performer with decades of credits and a longstanding Wikipedia article, whose divorce more than a year ago has gone unreported, though their marriage has been widely reported. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• From a more policy-related standpoint, we are not a celebrity gossip site. Since people can fall into and out of relationships at the drop of a hat, in comparison to engagements or marriages, we really should not be covering these unless they are significant factors in their life. And because these relationships are very fleeting, I would agree that documenting a relationship from a year-old source is not reliable for that purpose. --Masem (t) 04:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Agreed with the above statements. Wondering if the source was something like Daily Mail? If it was, there is no reason for wikilawyering, plain and simple.--Biografer (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    • It appeared to be from Paper (magazine) Not that that is not an RS, but even if it was the NYTimes reporting on the relationship, if it was still from a year ago and nothing new came of it, I would still omit it, simply because of how fleeting relationships can be. --Masem (t) 04:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
      • What if we use the word was instead of is? It might solve a headache. Besides, since when did recentism was OK?--Biografer (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
• My apologies for not signing. I've fixed that. I haven't put in more recent sources because that's not the point; the point is we don't remove sourced information from an article simply because the source is X days/weeks/years old unless we have new sources to back up that removal. That's not wikilawyering: that's a foundational principle of the project. The onus to justify a removal of sourced info is on the editor making the change, by referring to more recent or more reliable sources which consensus agrees supersede the existing statement(s). Also, "low notability" and "Internet celebrity" is not an accurate representation of Sivan's current pop music prominence so that attempt at hand-waving is a red herring. Finally, we aren't debating whether the material warranted inclusion in the first place: we are debating whether the removal of existing sourced information is justified because its sources are "old", where "old" is arbitrarily defined by a single editor and not based on any kind of guidelines I've ever encountered. The statement was not removed because the relationship described was "only" dating and not an engagement/marriage, it was removed (at least according to the edit summary given) because the source of the information was deemed to be stale, which again is not any kind of policy I'm aware of. I've certainly never seen other editors engage in behaviour that would lead me to believe this was a thing; if it was a widespread, supported approach, it would mean thousands of edits a day to remove statements whose sources had become "too old". —Joeyconnick (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The foundation starts with what is appropriate information to include in WP, and a celebrity's relationship status (outside of marriage) is not something we normally include. That's the first question to be asked. --Masem (t) 15:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

• • At a minimum, naming this person seems to violate WP:LPNAME. They don't seem to be notable, since they weren't even a red link, and I see no reason why "such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." Anyway the simple fact is we do not add every single person someone, even someone highly notable, is publicly linked to in some source. This is actually probably far more of a problem in articles of highly notable people where someone being spotted with someone else even once is probably going to be mentioned in hundreds of sources. Nil Einne (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Little River Band

Biased editors are constantly removing relevant updated info on the current touring Little River Band. How can we stop this from happening? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinaMoore (talk • contribs) 23:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you expand onthis, User:DinaMoore? All I see from you is the last two edits, which are appropriate -- the entire section looks to be unref'd, so certainly statements like "nor did they contribute to the success the band had in the 1970s" should be removed. You did so and haven't (yet) been gainsaid, so what's the problem? Herostratus (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC) [Herostratus] You seem to be quite knowledgeable about all of this and I am not. How can we clean up that Little River Band so it is fair and unbiased. The whole page is bias to the beginning formation of the band, of which, had the band actually ended when the first member left from the original formation, the band would have been over in 2 years. Any expert advice you could offer would be greatly appreciated.

The LRB headlined the local fair in my hometown, the Tanana Valley State Fair, this past August. I did not attend, so I can't say what the lineup was or how it differs from the classic lineup, which I would guess is the point being made here. It had been many years since the TVSF brought in a mainstream outside act for a concert, the last one being The Marshall Tucker Band. I did attend that concert and the band at that time consisted of Doug Gray and a bunch of guys who looked like they doubled as his roadies. Is that what you're getting at, DinaMoore? The point I would make is that any band touring the state fair circuit is probably not getting any coverage from mainstream music sources and therefore the type of sourcing the average Wikipedian desires is going to be lacking, which is probably why you're getting responses wondering what exactly you're asking for. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

So the complaint here is that the editors on the article are doing too much...reminiscing? Thank you. I'll see myself out. Dumuzid (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I like that, very cute with the too much reminiscing comment. This has been a battle for the past 2 years by someone who is a huge fan of the original members of the band creating a false narrative and attempting to make the current touring band as bad as possible. How can I make that stop. Is there somebodies attention I can bring this too that can stop (whoever is editing) this page from doing it in such a bias manner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinaMoore (talk • contribs) 01:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that I have no idea what you are talking about. No offense intended, but you are making vague statements about "someone" and "others", but I have no clue who these people are. This is followed by opinions that something is being made to look bad, but by who's opinion? It's as if I were to go on Judge Judy and say, "Someone is doing something somewhere and I don't like it". We need specific details of what the problem is; all the who, what, when, where, how and whys. Include diffs if you can. Zaereth (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)