Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:17, 24 September 2015

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Murder of Anni Dewani

Murder of Anni Dewani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some rogue editors are persistently attempting to inject false information that violates WP:BLP policies into the lede paragraph of this article. The BLP violation is that these additions are libelous in nature as they attempt to infer and ascribe guilt to a living person (Shrien Dewani) who has been legally exonerated of any involvement in the crime.

To provide some context for those unfamiliar with the case; the murder of Anni Dewani occurred in November 2010 during a robbery/car hijacking whilst she was on honeymoon with her husband Shrien Dewani in Cape Town, South Africa. The perpetrators of the crime implicated her husband, claiming that he had ordered her murder. Two of the criminals (Tongo and Qwabe) pled guilty on the basis of this "murder for hire" story and are serving reduced prison sentences in exchange for their testimony. One of the criminals (Mbolombo) was granted full immunity from prosecution contingent on his giving truthful evidence against Mr Dewani. Between the years of 2010 right through to the end of 2014, the crime was reported by reputable media outlets to be a "murder for hire" and this reporting was supported by the fact that the South African courts had accepted the "murder for hire" story when sentencing the three criminals, although the truthfulness of the story had never been tested. In the late 2014 trial of Shrien Dewani, the evidence was finally tested and proved unequivocally that the "murder for hire" story had been fabricated to incriminate the accused and all three key witnesses were found to have perjured themselves repeatedly. The trial was halted without Mr Dewani even being required to mount a defence, the court deciding that there was no credible evidence linking him to the crime. All charges were dismissed and he was exonerated of all involvement. This is all spelled out clearly in simple plain English in the judgement for that trial.

The key takeaway is this; information (the "murder for hire" story) that was at one time assumed to be factual has been disproven by new evidence and court findings which means that the earlier information ceases to be regarded as fact. Consequently it should not be reported or implied to be fact in the Misplaced Pages article.

The problem that we have is that some editors (namely Lane99) are of the opinion that Shrien Dewani "got away with murder" and despite his legal exoneration, are attempting to use Misplaced Pages as a tool to plant libelous misinformation. Specifically, Lane99 has made 7 attempts in the last month to re-add false misleading wording to the lede, stating as fact that Anni was the victim of a "murder-for-hire operation staged to appear as a random carjacking". Lane99 continues to justify this behaviour by claiming to be adding "neutral reliably sourced fact" whilst failing to acknowledge that the information can no longer be regarded as factual.

This flagrant violation of WP:BLP has been pointed out to Lane99 on numerous occasions on the Article's Talk page and on Lane99's own Talk page. This has been to little effect and Lane99 continues to re-add the false information despite repeated requests not to do so unless and until it is agreed on the Talk page. This tendentious behaviour is provoking other editors and is clearly disruptive.

Given the circumstances I would ask that we have some type of mediation and/or arbitration to once and for all make it clear that it is not ok to use Misplaced Pages to infer/ascribe guilt to a person who has been legally exonerated and more specifically that the "murder for hire" story not be stated as fact in the lede paragraph.

The "murder for hire" story was indeed a significant part of this case and does warrant mention in the lede, however that mention needs to be qualified by explaining that it was discredited, and should resemble something like the text below (which is how it currently reads):

Anni Ninna Dewani (née Hindocha; 12 March 1982 – 13 November 2010) was a Swedish woman of Indian origin who, while on her honeymoon in South Africa, was murdered in Gugulethu township near Cape Town, after the taxi in which she was travelling was carjacked. South African prosecutors formulated charges on the basis that she had been the victim of a premeditated kidnapping and murder for hire staged to appear as a random carjacking, at the alleged behest of her husband, Shrien Dewani. That theory was later discredited when Dewani was exonerated, the Western Cape High Court ruling that there was no credible evidence to support the allegations.

Dewanifacts (talk) 08:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Dewanifacts might not the most neutral/uninvolved voice on the subject of Shrien Dewani. The terrifying Scourge of Trumpton 10:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Scourge, that is a fair observation on your part. My name may imply that I am close to the matter being discussed but that is not the case. I am entirely independent, I have no links to anyone involved in the case and do not know anyone who has any link to the case. My interest is solely as an observer who took a keen interest in the case and created a blog with a couple of other similarly minded observers. My input here on Misplaced Pages does not push any POV. I stick solely to the facts established in courts of law, and the fair representation of those facts. As I have pointed out in other similar discussions regarding my objectivity, even if I were a Dewani family member or someone close to the case I would have every right to have a voice on here and to argue for the fair and accurate representation of the facts pertaining to the case. Dewanifacts (talk) 11:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Dewanifacts on the fact that he/she is more towards the objective side of editing the article. The murder for hire was simply a theory and of course it should be included in the article. But in user Lane99s edits it comes across as Shrien Dewani was per fact the perp and was freed by the court wrongly etc. I am the one who has followed this dispute the most and that is my take on the situation. In my opinion both Dewanifacts and Lane99 needs to take a wikibreak or start to co-operate. To have two users with so different opinions and both being strong headed will only lead to more blocks and protection of the article in question. I hope the result of this discussion will be that Lane99 learns to co-operate with Dewanifacts and actually want to get a resolution. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I would re-write the lede along the lines of: "...while on her honeymoon in South Africa, was murdered in Gugulethu township near Cape Town. Prosecutors pursued several theories of the crime. One theory held that the taxi in which she was travelling was randomly carjacked, while another held that the carjacking was staged as part of murder-for-hire. Two men have been convicted of the murder, and as part of a plea bargain, a third, the taxi's driver, plead guilty to several crimes and implicated Dewani's husband whom South African authorities later sought to extradite.KevinCuddeback (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The grossly excessive amount of material about the husband has to be reduced considering he was not found guilty at all. In addition, the amount of material framed in a non-neutral manner about this living person has to be excised. Also I did remove some "words to avoid" and material not clearly directly relevant to the stated ambit of the article - WP:BLP has not yet been repealed. Collect (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

And your edits have been unceremoniously reverted by User:Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors.--ukexpat (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Collect User:Ukexpat - Unceremoniously? Maybe... I do not advocate for keeping this information in, in fact I think that WP:BLP should probably preclude this information (and I would certainly vote than way, given an RfC). But I know there is certainly not consensus here for this removal and I'd prefer us to gain that consensus first. We're not in a hurry, let's remove this material, but lets do it in the right way... Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 13:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The article is about a murder. Extensive coverage of an innocent person in such an article is improper alas. And as such, I ask you to self-revert and recognize that it requires an affirmative consensus for such material about a living person to be re-inserted. Collect (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Collect - actions to remove violations of BLP do not need consensus, consensus is required to include such material.--ukexpat (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Ahahah, thanks guys! I'm relatively inexperienced and upon rereading the relevant sections of WP:BLP, I completely agree! Also, for some reason I thought that this was on the Talk page of the article not this noticeboard, guess I still have a LOT to learn! Thanks for your patience with my inexperience and your non-confrontational and calm demeanor throughout! Cheers, Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 13:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Hallo all. A couple of comments. Firstly might I suggest that someone move the last few edits (including this one) to the Talk page where they were intended to be placed? I'm loathe to do it in case it gets me into trouble again! Secondly, I largely concur with the views expressed above; there is a very non neutral vibe to much of what is written in the Article, leaning toward painting Shrien Dewani as a villain who was lucky to be acquitted. I do however balance that by acknowledging that were it not for the fabricated and discredited "murder for hire" allegations leveled at Dewani, this Misplaced Pages article would most likely not exist and none of us would ever have heard of the Dewanis so I do believe that some mention needs to be made and I also believe that the story is only half told if mentions of Dewani's trial and the revelations within are excised. Collect made a number of quite intelligent and well meaning edits to the Article's wording but also deleted vast swathes of highly relevant information (the trial of Shrien Dewani being one such section) that are part and parcel of the discussion of this crime. I rather unceremoniously reverted them as they were all one single edit. May I encourage Collect to please propose the edits on the Talk page - section by section ideally - so they can be discussed and enacted if there's no opposition or consensus reached. I tend to agree that whilst the Article should mention the scurrilous allegations made against Dewani, it need not focus on him as he was ultimately a victim of the crime and also of a baseless prosecution that cost him four years of his own life. I would also like to note that I concur wholeheartedly with User:Ukexpat when he/she says that consensus should not be required to remove WP:BLP violations; only to include potentially contentious material in the first place Dewanifacts (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Where a person has been cleared of an accusation, here is really little need for extensive coverage of that person in regard to a murder - the idea is that the ones actually convicted are the ones about whom the article really revolves. In the case at hand, far more than half the article was focused on the one person who should be least covered in detail. Collect (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

All other things being equal I would agree with you but in the case of the Dewani murder I cannot agree. As I mentioned earlier, ommitting details of Shrien Dewani's trial would result in half the story being untold and an untruthful picture of events being left with readers. This is mainly due the extraordinarily backward and incompetent manner in which this case was handled by South African authorities. The "murder for hire" story was accepted as being truthful by the authorities without it being tested for veracity and was used as the basis for 3 plea deals (Tongo, Qwabe, Mbolombo) and one conviction (Mngeni). By doing that, the authorities lent unwarranted credence to a highly improbable version of events that turned out to have no basis at all in fact. A balanced and neutral Article needs to reflect the thorough discrediting of the allegations against Mr Dewani. To be frank, Collect, most of your edits were spot on, with the notable exception of your removal of the sections on Dewani's trial, Mbolombo's non prosecution, judicial complaints and inquest murmurings. Dewanifacts (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Unsuccessful Mediator

Here are my comments on this article and the controversy about it and the case. My involvement was that it was brought to the dispute resolution noticeboard for moderated discussion, and I attempted to mediate the discussion. The article was page-protected for the first time on 15 August 2015. Two of the parties were User:Dewanifacts and User:Lane99. On the one hand, User:Dewanifacts is a single-purpose account. On the other hand, Dewanifacts is an SPA who is trying to comply with the key Misplaced Pages policies, which are neutral point of view and the policy on biographies of living persons. The undisputed facts in the case are that Anni Dewani was murdered in 2010 on her honeymoon in South Africa with Shrien Dewani, that certain South Africans are serving time for her murder, and that Shrien Dewani was tried and acquitted of arranging her murder. A previous court judgment, in sentencing one of the murderers, found, based on his confession, that the murder was a murder-for-hire designed to look like a random carjacking. The statements by the murderers fell apart in the trial of Mr. Dewani, so that the other possibility is that this was a botched carjacking with false confessions to make it look like a murder-for-hire. Lane99 argues that the finding of murder-for-hire was never set aside and so is still a fact. If it was a murder-for-hire, then there is a mystery murderer out there, because the one person who was accused of arranging the murder has been tried and formally acquitted.

When the article came off page protection after a week, the editors began editing the article again, and I failed the dispute resolution, because the edits were not being discussed. The article has now been page-protected for another month. I am not optimistic that long-term page protection is likely to result in improvement of the article. There did not appear to be, and still does not appear to be, any willingness to work out consensus by discussion while the article is locked. The page-protecting administrator, User:Callanec, has suggested using BLP discretionary sanctions to impose sanctions on any editor making substantive changes to the article without prior discussion and consensus, and I agree that Callanec’s remedy is a reasonable approach.

The real question that I see is how much content needs to be devoted to the allegations against and trial of Mr. Dewani. Since there has been considerable coverage of the trial, it needs to be covered, with particular focus on the fact that Mr. Dewani was acquitted. (There do appear to have been miscarriages of justice in the investigation of the crime. The trial of Mr. Dewani was not a miscarriage of justice, but may have been an ending to a miscarriage of justice, the attempted railroading of Mr. Dewani.)

So the real question is how much coverage should be given to the failed prosecution of Mr. Dewani. It should be enough to explain that Mr. Dewani was tried and acquitted and is innocent. That appears to be the disagreement between User:Dewanifacts and User:Collect, as to how much weight to give, not to the fact that Mr. Dewani was tried and is innocent. That is my opinion.

Since collaborative discussion has failed and continues to fail, and since BLPs are subject to discretionary sanctions, some use of discretionary sanctions is in order.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

My sole attempt on the article was, indeed, to remove the excessive material which was quite apparently not specifically pertinent to the title and ambit of the article. hat is - we can state he was accused, and exonerated - but the minutiae of the extradition, his health, etc. do not meet the requirement of being specifically and substantially related to the encyclopedia article at hand. Collect (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

There is actually very little disagreement between myself and Collect. I concur with most of what he/she has said. There are some suggested article amendments on the Talk page Robert McClenon. Dewanifacts (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It is a fact that Anni Hindocha's murder has been found by multiple courts to have been a murder for hire. Those rulings have never been overturned, or contradicted, by any other court ruling.

It is also a fact that Shrien Dewani was acquitted of involvement in the criminal conspiracy that resulted in Hindocha's murder. Note that is the *only* question the Dewani judgement ruled upon. It did *not* rule Hindocha's murder was not a contract killing. In fact, the contrary is true. The Dewani judgment EXPRESSLY PRECLUDES itself from ruling on the question of whether Hindocha's death was or was not a murder for hire. Therefore any claim that the Dewani judgment overrules the multiple previous findings of fact that the murder was a contract killing is a false claim. Therefore the misleading opening paragraph of the article should be reverted to the neutral recitation of the salient facts (all supported by multiple reliable sources) of the article's topic ("The Murder of Anni Dewani") as per the edit I previously made.Lane99 (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Here we have the main issue showing clearly. User Dewanifacts is willing to discuss the matter on a level of mutual understanding. User Lane99 claims to have all the answers and are unwilling to compromise at all. And that has been evident from the start. Just being honest from my observations of these two editors since the dispute between them started. If there are no willingness to compromise it will either end in the article being protected for a long time in a months time again, or one or both of these two editors will be blocked for a very long time. It is time for discussion, compromises and grown up behavior overall from both users. For your own sake. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

One more drastic and perhaps better solution would be to give both users sanctions/bans on editing the article in question during a period of time. To calm down the situation and give other users a chance to edit the article to a possibly more overall neutral version. Because as of now both users seems to be on complete opposite sides of the spectra in terms of the Shrien Dewani situation. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi BabbaQ There is absolutely no justification or need for me to be banned or sanctioned due to the actions of another editor. I have, in my first month as a Misplaced Pages editor, quickly become acquainted with Misplaced Pages policy. I respect and adhere to Misplaced Pages policy. I will not be contravening any Wiki policies, I will not be making any contentious edits and I most certainly will not become involved in any type of edit warring. The only edits I make will be those that have been discussed and upon which consensus has been reached. If another editor's Misplaced Pages behaviour shows a disdain for productive discussion and that editor's views are diametrically opposed to reality and to the prevailing consensus, then the issue lies with that editor, not with me. If another editor chooses to engage in behaviour that falls foul of guidelines or is contrary to the collaborative nature of Misplaced Pages, then please address the issue with that editor. Please do not drag me into it as though I am somehow responsible for another editor's actions. Please judge my actions on their own merits. Thanks. Dewanifacts (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

This may very well be true, but I would also encourage you to make meaningful contributions to other areas of Misplaced Pages. You have a great passion for this particular event and if that could be applied to other articles I'm sure a great many editors would appreciate it. AND it would go a long way towards removing a sense of bias that you have been accused of since you currently seem to be a single purpose account (which is usually frowned upon by other editors). Best of luck! Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 18:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Lane99 is forum shopping. However, what exactly is he saying should be done about the "murder-for-hire" theory? Does he mean that he thinks that Shrien Dewani is still guilty of an offense for which he was formally acquitted, or does he think that there is a mystery arranger out there who needs to be brought to justice? If the second, is some reliable source available to report on that search? I suggest that User:Lane99 be topic-banned from this case, but that is my suggestion. Does he have a constructive idea for where to go now? (I don't think it was a murder for hire. I think that lying murderers said that it was a murder for hire, which leaves it as the testimony of lying murderers. However, if there is a constructive suggestion, we can improve the encyclopedia.) I would suggest that User:Lane99 either respond with how to improve the article with the search for the mystery arranger, or that User:Lane99 agree to a voluntary topic-ban, or that User:Lane99 be given an involuntary topic ban under BLP sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAWCHC/2014/188.html
2. http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAWCHC/2014/188.html
3. https://dewanifacts.wordpress.com/

Emily Blunt

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

In a recent, informal The Hollywood Reporter video interview with several celebrities, at the 1:24 mark, Emily Blunt made an off-hand joke about becoming an American citizen on the day of the Republican debate, saying: "I became an American citizen recently, and that night, we watched the Republican debate and I thought, 'This was a terrible mistake. What have I done?". This off-hand joke (as well as another joke in a Jimmy Kimmel interview about the citizenship process and renouncing the queen) was predictably sensationalized in the media, and criticized by conservatives/Republicans: e.g, , , , .

Blunt apologized for making the tongue-in-cheek comment, saying "It was just an off-hand joke. I think I'll probably leave the political jokes to late-night or something ... taking the oath was "really meaningful." "My two favorite people in the world are American, my husband and my daughter," she said, referring to her and Krasinksi's 1-year-old daughter Hazel. "It was kind of a special day. Yeah, it was great.""

Fyunck(click), in apparently tendentious edits, added the comments to the BLP: , , , , also in this edit making a WP:POINTy declaration that removing the off-hand joke (deemed "bashing her citizenship") from the article warrants removing the encyclopedic, notable information on becoming a naturalized citizen.

The edits pertaining to the addition of the off-hand joke were reverted, on the basis of it not being encyclopedic, per WP:BLP (e.g.,"Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid") Misplaced Pages:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper, WP:RECENTISM, WP:ONUS, and WP:UNDUE. This has been under discussion on the BLP talk page. The comment was added again along with the apology, by another editor then unaware of the talk discussion. Lapadite (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You know... this isn't an "Ani" so please leave out the personal smear campaign @Lapadite77:. State your case on what you think about the additions made by multiple editors, they will say their own thing, and agreements will be reached. Is the info recent, sure. So is the addition of her citizenship recent so that's a ridiculous claim. I had suggested we remove both but that didn't sit well with you. You can't have it both ways with the recentism claim. It's being discussed at the talk page of Emily Blunt so now we have two places of talk. Whether it was a joke or not (and there's some debate about that) it's all over the place in sourcing. Newspapers in the US and abroad. Not tabloids. Goodness, it's even being reported that she has now apologized. She did not apologize about about renouncing the queen though. A simple statement about this issue side by side with the citizenship seems appropriate. Could it have been written better than I did, or other editors? Surely. Should it be removed over and over again, no. It's part of her citizenship legacy now. Mine was shorter than what was written by the last editor but both were well sourced. We could have added 20 more. It isn't a positive sentence in a BLP so I made sure there was proper foundation, but we can't just disregard items because the info isn't a glowing portrait. I'm not sure why this is an issue with all the sources, but here we are. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Please, spare the projection. Again, two editors isn't multiple. You've already been told by more than one editor (e.g., ) that becoming a naturalized citizen is important, encyclopedic info. Equating a momentarily sensationalized joke with a significant and permanent event in the subject's life, such as change of nationality/citizenship, is "ridiculous". Whatever hyperbolic jokes Blunt made, inappropriate or not, about becoming an American citizen, they aren't encyclopedic. A public joke about an event that is itself encyclopedic doesn't make a joke about it encyclopedic, whether or not it annoys a group of people. Like I said on the talk page, " a tabloid, or a news aggregator ... Celebrities say comments that are sensationalized by the media and/or criticized by a section of the population all the time. Everything said on social media is public record, that is not an argument. This has no encyclopedic significance." Online media reports anything and everything; we don't include something on a WP article because the media temporarily buzzed about it. Moreover, Blunt's clarification itself already made this utterly irrelevant. Lapadite (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

What is this projection crap? This is a discussion right here right now. Why are you trying to make things personal by bringing other stuff here? Knock it off and try to make your case without constantly bringing everything I've written elsewhere over here. You know there were other editors that tweaked my additions without censoring it. They also must have agreed it belonged there. They didn't do a blanket removal as you did. So please keep to the topic at hand and leave the rants outside the door. This is a discussion page not a complaint page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This "debate" stinks of Misplaced Pages:Censorship. This woman made a very controversial statement in Toronto. And she didn't say it at a cocktail party or in an offhand manner. The statement Ms. Blunt mad was during which a number of actors and actresses sat down with The Hollywood Reporter at the Toronto International Film Festival to discuss the state of American politics. It was in this group, that all of those participating in, were making political statements. This was recorded on video, and it can be watched . Connor7617 (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not a naive woman. She was not speaking privately to another person; she was not "taken out of context", she has lived as a public figure for well over a decade and understands what a media interview is. This statement was made by her as part of the interview.Connor7617 (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The resulting firestorm of controversy perhaps was not anticipated by Ms. Blunt, but it happened. Now it appears that Ms. Blunt was advised by her management team that her statement may affect the popularity of her new film, and during a promotional appearance on the major US television "Today Show", she tried to make light of it as "a joke". It does not appear to be that way when she made it. However she made the "apology". This is indeed a significant part of her career and should appear on the Misplaced Pages article. Misplaced Pages is replete with these kind of controversies that are attributed to the individuals who made them, and this is not an exception. Connor7617 (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not a WP:BLP policy violation issue. On its own, the fact that she made an off-color joke is not noteworthy, but if a controversy erupts lasting for more than a few days, and appearing in numerous high quality sources, then consideration should be given to including it in her bio. WP:DUEWEIGHT is the governing policy, but one should ask themselves if this information will be considered encyclopedic in 10 years, or 100 years.- MrX 12:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

"Firestorm of controversy"? Anna Kooiman gets indignant when Obama looks left before right when crossing the street. I'm not convinced that Blunt's gaffe is a significant part of her career, and I would be surprised if anyone is talking about this a week from now. Until this moves out of the celebrity gossip columns, we should really be focused on the fact that Blunt almost killed Tom Cruise. - Location (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that it was not this one occasion that Ms Blunt made other negative remarks about taking her oath of United States Citizenship. For example, on the Jimmy Kimmel Live show on September 9th, she said "... It's so strange and slightly disarming. I'm not sure I'm entirely thrilled about it," she said. "People ask me about the whole day. They were like, 'Oh, it must have been so emotional.' I was like, 'It wasn't! It was sad!' I like being British. It was the most bizarre day...." Sorry, but it is not a joke, where is the humor in disrespecting one's country just after becoming a citizen? Her "apology is her realization that she just made herself unbearable to Americans and most likely also "un-bankable" to entertainment producers. This is quite suitable for her Misplaced Pages page under a subsection "United States Citizenship" which I had posted earlier and was taken down until this matter is resolved. She made these statements. They are part of the public record. They are well documented and referenced. If her acquiring American Citizenship is notable, then her subsequent statements about her citizenship are as well. Period, Full Stop. And what does Anna Kooiman have to do with any of this? Connor7617 (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

References

It's not germane to the argument, but you are confusing "disrespecting one's county" with "disrespecting the Republican party". Fox & Friends didn't like that Blunt criticized the GOP. Kooiman's remark asking why Blunt doesn't "leave Hollywood, California" was another version of the trite "love it or leave it" saying. Whatever. Kooiman et al. get paid to play to a certain audience and that is what they did. Wake me when this story gets Dixie Chicked, but right now there is nothing to indicate that this is anything more than tabloid journalism. - Location (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. Ms Blunt made the comments about her United States Citizenship. They is a part of the public record. They 's just as notable as her acquiring her United States Citizenship. It's just that simple. Connor7617 (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Exclude the comments per WP:NOTNEWS. She made a pretty obvious joke and some right wingers got bent out of shape over it. That's all that happened here. This event is not important enough to include in an encyclopedia. Go blog about it if you think it's important. Calidum 01:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Include The statements (note several) were a public comment by her on her United States Citizenship. If her acquiring American Citizenship is notable, then her subsequent statements about her citizenship are as well. Connor7617 (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Such indignation here. We've already had plenty of boldface, so may I throw in Spanish punctuation? The woman made comments about her US citizenship, or maybe about the Republican "debate", or maybe about the juxtaposition of the two. Actors make comments on TV all the time -- given all the hours of airtime, the thousands of actors, and the TV obsession with celebs, it would be surprising if they didn't. Her comments don't seem to have libeled anyone, blasphemed , discriminated, proclaimed state secrets, divulged seditious intent, announced "fire" in a crowded theater, or similar. (Now for the Spanish punctuation.) And therefore, by encyclopedic standards: ¡No biggie! By contrast, people don't routinely add or subtract nationalities. ¡Change of nationality = biggie; different degree of notability! Full stop, period, punto, finis. OTOH if various talking heads make a frothy mix out of this extremely humdrum remark, then this might have a certain (Misplaced Pages-style) "notability"; but NB there are lots of talking heads, and they routinely turn humdrum non-events into frothy mixes. -- Hoary (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Exclude. Not news. It was a joke. It's time for us to stop getting so upset over nothing. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 18:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Exclude Just another gossip media tempest in a teapot, soon to be forgotten, and unworthy of inclusion in a biography in an encyclopedia. Cullen Let's discuss it 19:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Exclude per my OP, Calidum, and Cullen. Lapadite (talk) 07:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Simon Danczuk

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

reverts my removal of

In March 2015 he publically admitted that he watches hardcore pornography. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11502944/I-watch-porn-says-Labour-MP-Simon-Danczuk.html

The issue is clearly one of undue weight for a trivial comment, at best, IMHO.

The other revert made by the same editor (who seems to not be as new as his account?) is which re-adds:

despite the incident leading to Prime Minister Gordon Brown's "bigoted woman" remark having occurred in Rochdale.

Which appears to use Misplaced Pages's voice for a claim sourced to http://www.research-live.com/news/government/former-researchers-zahawi-and-danczuk-win-seats-in-uk-parliament/4002638.article . At best the opinion that "many thought his campaign would have been irreparably damaged after Prime Minister Gordon Brown, on a visit to Rochdale, was overheard describing a voter as a “bigoted woman”." should be attributed to the site making that claim, and not be made in Misplaced Pages's voice at all. Again, IMHO. Collect (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I removed the bit about the porn watching. As it's undue, and just a bit of trivial gossip, even if true. — Strongjam (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It may not be very encyclopedic, and it may be WP:UNDUE, but it's not a BLP violation. The subject has openly admitted that he watches porn and it's been covered in other sources . There's nothing shameful about watching porn anyway.- MrX 15:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Your The Guardian source states explicitly "as have virtually all men" which if we accept it as "fact" means we could add that statement as well. Thanks for making that request. I suppose we could also add "He also pees standing up usually" per such sources. The question is, however, is the claim of any encyclopedic value in a biography of a living person? Collect (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that it's really not worth listing in the article at this point in time. If it ends up that it ruins his career or it makes some stupendous impact on his life then we can list it, but otherwise what's the point? Most people have watched and enjoyed some form of pornography at least once in their life, so that's really not an overly surprising revelation about someone who appears to be a healthy human being. MrX is right in that if taken at face value this isn't a BLP violation per se, but we do have to look at the editor's reasons for adding this. If they're adding it because they're hoping it'd embarrass or otherwise harm Brown, then this could turn into something bigger. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

No sooner is that issue done than we have Simon Danczuk facing a determined SPA - seeking to add (first case) an absolute copyvio from a newspaper (exact and complete wording - not even a close call) and multiple efforts to add the material all in a single day without any discussion. I am forbidden t edit there now, so ask that others examine this "interesting" sequence of edits. Collect (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Watchlisted (Think Strongjam is monitoring it too, he has left a warning at the editors TP). Suspect the editor will end up with a 3rr block at some point soon. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm at 3rr in the space of 30 mins. Determined little SPA... Reported at 3r. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I do have it watch-listed.. I'm added another diff to the 3RN report as well. At least they've removed all the commentary about the numbers, although I still see no value in the content. — Strongjam (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Ryan Kaldari and List of Misplaced Pages controversies

List of Misplaced Pages controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have removed the bullet point about Kaldari from the above article, because he is a non notable living person and there's only one source covering the issue. Before that I removed the term "harass" from the bullet point because harassment is a form of criminal activity. Are these correct interperations of BLP policy? Brustopher (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a single Daily Dot article makes for a notable Misplaced Pages controversy. Gamaliel (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I was just going to say the same thing. A single report does not a controversy make (unless it were the New York Times, say, in which case however it would almost certainly be picked up elsewhere). Andreas JN466 17:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Brustopher's removal is based on a false premise: There isn't only one source covering the issue as he says, there's two sources:

• Misplaced Pages staffer at center of latest sockpuppet scandal - from The Daily Dot
• "Foundation employee caught sockpuppeting and loses admin rights" - from examiner dot com (note that I tried to link it to the website on the article, but it's on Misplaced Pages's "blacklist" for some reason).

These links show that more than one source has covered the issue, so I'd say the controversy is notable. Note that the Daily Dot source uses the word "harass", but Brustopher kept changing it to "attack", because you say it's a form of criminal activity. The context it was used in clearly does not allege any criminal activity on Kaldari's part, so WP:BLPCRIME does not apply. Now, the bullet point definitely should not be removed in its entirety, as this event was covered by more than one source. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid an Examiner.com blog by Gregory Kohs does not meet RS criteria, especially when involving a living person. Gamaliel (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'd like to say that anything that could even remotely pose a BLP issue should be sourced by more than 2 sources - if anything, I'd say that there should be at least 5-10 in-depth, strong reliable sources covering the event. A look on the Internet doesn't really bring up much, to be honest. The reason for this is that sadly, there are a lot of controversies surrounding Misplaced Pages. I'd say that for every one that made it on the list, there are about 5-10 that flew pretty solidly under the radar and received little to no reporting. Just like with any other similar type of page on here, we should only include the ones that are heavily covered in the media. If you can find this coverage then it can be added, but until then it needs to remain off the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Jack Evans (D.C. politician)

Jack Evans (D.C. politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, there is a low-level edit war taking place for a "moderately successful" local politician, Jack Evans . One editor Bangabandhu has repeatedly reverted contentious information over the consensus of multiple other editors. Myself and another editor agree that the insertion of salary information (while available in several sources, though of various reliability and with conflicting amounts) is an attempt at critical innuendo or snark, rather than relevant to the encyclopedic information on a living person. There is extensive conversation of the talk page (talk) under the Salary and NPOV headers. I am asking for an administrator or new administrator to review.Anonymouse202 (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Jack Evans has been accused of editing Misplaced Pages himself and there have been some media accounts about this. Gamaliel (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Evans's article was turned into a hatchet job before the last election. He didn't notice it until after, and made some very angry edits. He's been fucked over by Misplaced Pages so I'd appreciate it if non-partisan editors could get involved there and extend him a reasonable amount of patience and understanding if he's back. Handled poorly, this has the potential to blow back on Misplaced Pages quite seriously. NPOV and DUE people. 03:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC) Scanning the article and talk page histories I see no evidence of Evans editing recently (he has an account), just some long-term editors and a long-term single-purpose anti-Evans warrior. But new, impartial eyes with a good grounding in WP:BLP would be helpful. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Just for clarity - there are some edits around Sept. 6 that appear to be Evans (he often forgets to log in, or maybe forgets his password, I dunno), but those don't relate to the salary issue, which discussion was (in this go round) sparked by an IP comment on the Talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Bonz Malone

I am Bonz Malone and I have had an outdated Wiki page written about me for years. Today, Sept. 19, 2015, I attempted to register and edit my own biography, which I did not ask for, nor ever before posted myself and it was reverted by Swister Twister. I suppose my edit is under review or something like that. I am highly offended and since these biographies are on living people, I find it even more insulting that I am having any problem adding truth to my own story. If my edit cannot or will not be used on Misplaced Pages, then I want the current one that exists to be removed immediately.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.146.54 (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The edits to Bönz Malone made today by Bonz Malone (talk · contribs) were reverted because they were not backed up by a reliable source. Within the context of this noticeboard, that's the correct action that should have been taken.

The editor who reverted said edits then nominated the article for deletion; AfD discussion has just started and will run about a week. —C.Fred (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

To the person who says he is Bonz Malone: make an entry on the talk page for the article, with the items you think are wrong. If you can come up with published sources that is preferable. Editors will eventually look at your request, and if it's matched by published sources, they will likely edit the article for you. New Media Theorist (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Craig Hill (rugby union)

Dear sir / madam,

I am requesting that a Misplaced Pages page concerning myself is removed. Craig Hill (rugby union).

Whilst I am happy with my achievements I do not play rugby anymore and would like to lead a private life. Therefore I would like the article to be removed.

On a professional level and another reason I would like the deletion is the fact that I am now have a different career and there have been instances of undesirable editing added to the page.

I have added a delete tag to the page but the page keeps getting restored.

Personal information that has nothing to do with the rugby has also been posted and this is where I draw the line.

I hope you can also be of help in this matter and look forward to your reply.

Kind regards, Craig Hill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicleaner77 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

There were some BLP concerns on the page with respect to family members and current status. That material has been removed.

It is reasonable to expect a level of privacy with respect to after-rugby activities. However, if Hill is notable as an international rugby player, then we should have an article on him—notability does not expire. The notability is an if right now, depending on whether he's been written about in reliable secondary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

A quick search turns up some media coverage and his old Newport RFC profile page, so there are some sources out there on him. —C.Fred (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

question about my edit

I am wondering whether the edit I just made is good call. I'd like to hear the perspective of more experienced editors. I removed a sourced statement about an accusation against the article subject. It just did not seem to belong, and it seems to victimize the subject in some ways. The source is bad but the claim is somewhat borne out by sources like this one. New Media Theorist (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Well... I can see removing the bits about the allegations if they didn't go to court and there wasn't much sourcing, but your new edit was fairly promotional in tone. "His etchings capture and reflect the natural beauty of his Northern Ontario home." is pretty unambiguously promotional and will need to be re-written. It kind of reads like it was taken directly from a press release. I also somewhat have to question his notability given the small amount of sourcing I'm finding for him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, it looks like you didn't write that bit. It's still fairly promotional, though. I'm not finding anything, so I'm going to just take it to AfD. I can't see any coverage of any of his art showings, despite claims in the article that he did this. The links at the bottom are all dead and the one site that has a member lookup doesn't have him listed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross (consultant)

I am doing my best to comply and post within guidelines of Misplaced Pages. See https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Rick_Alan_Ross At this point I remain blocked. I have emailed the appropriate people/committee within Misplaced Pages, but have received no response. I would like to post at the Talk page of my bio.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• This has to go through ArbCom. That said, it is slightly surprising on how long it's taking, but you have a good crew helping you out with things right now on your talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. My account and identity has been verified and I am unblocked at the Talk page.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 12:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

2015 in art

It seems the person accused of raping Emma Sulkowicz is named in the article 2015 in art. Given that the consensus appears to be not to name him in the article Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), I suspect that his name should be removed from that page too, but I want to know what others think. Everymorning (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the name. It is relevant to Sulkowicz's article but It doesn't seem at all relevant to a timeline article. Gamaliel (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, but according to this RfC there is consensus for inclusion of his name in Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) provided that his full defence is also discussed. Was there another RfC that I don't know about? (By the way, I'm not advocating including his name in 2015 in art). - MrX 17:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No rationale given for naming the person in the "Year" overview article exists. Collect (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, the accused is not named in the Mattress Performance article, and besides that, Sammy1339 said on the article's talk page last month that "One of the few things there is general agreement on is the exclusion of the accused's name." Everymorning (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Justine Skye

This biography of a living person does not include any references or sources.

This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.89.66.147 (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It's been tagged. Apparent copyvio too. JohnInDC (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Added references. Still poorly written, but clearly meets Misplaced Pages:Notability. --GRuban (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Richard J. Jensen

Richard J. Jensen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is having the following content in the lede of this article appropriate?

In 2015 he received media attention when the central argument of his 2002 article "No Irish Need Apply: A Myth of Victimization", in which he had claimed that there was no systematic discrimination against Irish people on the US labor market in the 19th century, was contradicted by evidence found by a high school student.

Brustopher (talk) 22:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me weigh in re: "he had claimed that there was no systematic discrimination against Irish people on the US labor market in the 19th century, was contradicted by evidence found by a high school student." I did NOT make any such claim about discrimination. I focused on what I called a myth that there were "omnipresent" NINA window signs. I said there were very few or zero NINA window signs--the signs in store windows, factories, shops were a myth. She claims she found some signs and at HNN I tried to show that each of her sign-cases was mistaken. Rjensen (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, from a cursory reading of the excerpt I agree. And yes, being in the lead is a bit much. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• It is essential to have in the lead, as it is about the only aspect of his career for which Jensen has received abundant media attention. The lead must summarize the body and a significant part of the body should be about the NINA controversy because that is what most of the literature about Jensen is about. Also other historians have definitely read Jensen's claim as a general claim that there was no significant discrimination of Irish people on the US Labor market - not solely as a question of how many signs there were. Also the actual news coverage would easily support the claim that his research was disproven by the high school student, merely saying that her study contradicted Jensen's argument is in fact generous.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Jensen has received quite a bit of academic attention including a prize from the American Historical Association. Why should we judge what goes into the lede by media attention? Also keep in mind this is a BLP.Brustopher (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

What goes into the lead is determined by what goes into the body of the article and it should have the same degree of weight in the lead as in the body.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The body never says his argument was contradicted by evidence found by a student. Brustopher (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I received national media attention regarding my Misplaced Pages article in 2012--that seems more relevant to this article. The NINA article has often been cited by dozens of scholars in print but in the current version all that is left out and instead we get non-RS cites to 2015 blogs. I wrote: "Was there any systematic job discrimination against the Catholic Irish in the US: possibly, but direct evidence is very hard to come by." and then summarized OTHER historians who found little evidence. Fried did NOT try to gauge overall job discrimination against the Irish--she had about 70 newspaper items in 22 cities in 100 years--fewer than one case per year. I said that was rare, she said no. By the way: she was NOT a high school student. Rjensen (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• No. That sentence does not belong in the lede, especially in the rather demeaning way it is written. It is at most an interesting tidbit in the overall biography but it is not central to Mr. Jensen's noteworthiness. This just looks like someone is trying to denigrate a living person. The information is appropriate where it resides in the article and in its neutral expression, but this sentence should certainly not be in the lede. Minor4th 00:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• No - It's a relatively small event compared to the overall accomplishments of the subject. It certainly doesn't rise the level of significance to justify nearly half of the lead.- MrX 03:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• No. A clear case of UNDUE and recentism. He's had a long career, can we actually support the statement that it is "the only aspect of his career for which Jensen has received abundant media attention"? His academic career goes back to the 1960s and much media coverage from previous decades has not made it to digital form yet. Have you searched newspaper indexes and other print sources to find how much media coverage he has received during that time? Gamaliel (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hiroyuki Nishimura

Hiroyuki Nishimura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article being vandalized. Currently says that <redacted>, as well as uses several other racial slurs. Likely due to the news today that he purchased 4chan.

Ex: "<redacted>.

<redacted>."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.219.215 (talk)

Page is now protected, trolls blocked, and bad edits removed from the history. I've also redacted the attacks you quoted. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Vani Hari (Food Babe)

I came across the article on Vani Hari and found it to be extremely slanted toward smearing her, in my assessment. I've been following the controversy about her, voices in favor and against her, and critiques of her work as well as people who praise her work. I made an effort to edit the page to change some of the most glaring bias, and was promptly reverted and shut down by a small group of people who in my reckoning have occupied the article in an effort to make it into a soapbox for her critics, which is not what Misplaced Pages should be. I would appreciate some attention by uninvolved people, and hearing your comments on this. You may notice the recent edit history contains several edits by myself, and reverts by other editors, and plenty of dialogue in the talk page. Thank you for any time and attention you bring to this. SageRad (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor who was brought to said page by an earlier RfC by SageRad, I would say I did not find the same bias that's being claimed. Further, I read through ensuing talk page discussions (since you posted the RfC) and disagree that you are being stopped by a small group of people "in an effort to make it into a soapbox for her critics." As I see it, I would say you are likely too invested in this article and keep trying to post unsourced claims against consensus. I might recommend you take a step back from this article and just be willing to let this one go dude... Sorry to be so blunt, but I don't have a dog in this fight and someone should give you a frank analysis of the situation. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 18:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I posted a sourced claim, and it was reverted. I'm not "invested" in the article, but rather i'm invested in Misplaced Pages having space for editors with differing perspectives. I don't have a window into other people's minds to know their motivations, but the circumstantial evidence seems pretty clear to me. You don't know my motivation, either. Thank you for your opinion, but i'd still like to hear others and i maintain my position that the article is occupied by a group who have essentially locked it into a single direction. Thank you also for your input into the RfC. Wish there were more people who would follow the bot and offer their view. SageRad (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

In its previous state the article seemed a bit unbalanced in opposition of Hari, to the point where it made scientifically inaccurate claims that contradicted the sources to add to the ammo against her. The article also distorted a source to claim that Hari thought baking soda was a dangerous chemical!!!!!!! (thereby portraying her as stark raving mad) when the source clearly said no such thing. This article had some seriously skeezy BLP problems. I've made quite a few changes to the article but one, removing a laundry list of bullet pointed accusations against Hari based on a single source was reverted based on a "consensus" which seems incredibly dubious (both in terms of numbers supporting inclusion and the strength of their arguments). What do the wise folk of BLPN, think of the validity of including such a laundry list? Brustopher (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I have returned that bullet list to the article, in a different way, hopefully to satisfy your objection to the over use of one source. The illustrations of her strange approach to facts is a vital part of her BLP. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 10:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I am thankful to Brustopher for the careful and thoughtful work. The article does indeed look much improved to me. SageRad (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

... and yet no thanks to me for improving further? Why not? -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 12:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Your edit uses the word "sell" whereas the source uses the phrase "she recommends—and earns an Amazon.com affiliate commission from". Your claim in the article is that "Hari claims that aluminium in deodorants leads to breast cancer" whereas the source reads "Hari links aluminum in modern deodorants to horrific diseases such as breast cancer and Alzheimer’s" and when i go to Hari's own writing on which this is based, i find she actually wrote this: "I researched the ingredient Aluminum, and found out it is linked to all sorts of diseases, including 2 that I sadly personally have witnessed in close friends and family members – Breast Cancer and Alzheimer’s Disease. The link of aluminum to these diseases is hotly debated, some studies find a low risk factor (probably those funded by the chemical companies) and some find horrible results, like those studies that find aluminum accumulating in breast tissue or breaking the blood brain barrier leading to Alzheimer’s." So, there seems to be two levels of some distortion going on -- from Hari to the source, and then from the source to the Misplaced Pages article. Each distortion leans toward making Hari look bad. And the issue of weight. That's why i have some issues with your edits, Roxy. Hari does appear to have made a mistake there, and does recommend a deodorant that does contain alum, which does contain aluminum. That is certainly a mistake. But it seems that the use of this is mean spirited. SageRad (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Along a similar note, i made this edit as it appears to be a claim on a secondary source level (review statement) regarding human health, which would require MEDRS sourcing standard, and this source is definitely not up to par in that regard. Also, the claim is flawed anyway. It's based on this sentence in the source, which is an op-ed style essay: "It’s important to stress that experts in science and medicine have time and again debunked Hari’s claims that the ingredients discussed in this piece are as dangerous as she claims." Well, as i stated about Hari's clim regarding aluminum and disease, the source distorted that claim's magnitude as i have shown in the previous comment, and her claim does hold some truth. Aluminum has some link to breast cancer, and to Alzheimer's. Neither is definitive, but Hari does not claim that. This is emblematic of the nature of the bias that i see in the article, especially as it stood a couple days ago before some corrective edits were made. SageRad (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't find the article "extremely slanted toward smearing her", however there may be too much detail and quote mining in the criticism section, and probably some WP:NPOV concerns. The sentence "d'Entremont received death threats for her criticism of Hari following her article." and the phrase "... and in a 2011 Twitter post stated that flu vaccines have been used as a "genocide tool" in the past" are poorly sourced and should be removed. and are primary sources. They should not be used for the contentious claim "The statement became widely controversial... with public organisations promoting science, such as McGill University's Office for Science & Society and the American Council on Science and Health.". The last paragraph in Marketing strategy depends on one source and seems WP:UNDUE. The source is also somewhat biased.- MrX 14:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

A few days ago, the article was substantially different. Much progress has been made at restoring some balance, thankfully. SageRad (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Manika (singer)

Some experienced editors/admins really need to pay attention to the PR stunt that this article is. The talk page, the edit history, the article it's extremely concerning. I'm stunned it was kept after an AfD. I know this is not the best of sources but reading this really made me even more concerned hence why I am not discussing it on the article talk page but here instead. CoolMarc 22:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the deleted talkpage, that was possibly deleted by accident in a recent IP edit. But really don't want to get involved in the article itself (already got enough messy articles on my watchlist without this one). The previous AfD discussion and deletion review should probably be linked from the talkpage as well, if anyone AfD-knowledgeable could fix that. GermanJoe (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Added AfD tag with notice about deletion review (hopefully that works). GermanJoe (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The Sienna

User:Mmmv11 recently created this dubious unreferenced article on a blp that was nominated for speedy deletion. He subsequently removed the tag without really addressing any of the concerns raised. I have very limited time right now to dedicate to wikipedia, otherwise I would bring this through the appropriate process of handling such situations (such as an AFD). Can someone help?4meter4 (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I Sent it to AFD. Arguably a candidate for speedy but we'll see. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution