Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:46, 25 August 2016

• 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.

• Refining the administrator elections process
• 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 Seth Rich

Editors views are solicited on the talk page thread captioned Deletion of Rewards. SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The main issue is whether it's a BLP violation for this article to mention that WikiLeaks has offered a $25,000 reward for information about this murder.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I have looked at the talk page in question and even made a few comments. I see absolutely no BLP issues with mentioning that WikiLeaks has offered a $25,000 reward for information about the murder. Some sources have speculated as to why WikiLeaks would do such a thing, and any such speculation should be handled with care because some of the speculation is a clear BLP violation, but there is zero justification for keeping the well-sourced and notable fact that WikiLeaks has offered a $25,000 reward for information about this murder out of the article. Clearly, it is not a BLP violation. "BLP" is not a magic word that allows one to censor material that someone (in this case the family) may object to. Then again, it is far from clear that the family objects to any mention that WikiLeaks has offered a $25,000 reward for information about the murder. Rather, they appear to have a problem with the associated speculation (as do I). --Guy Macon (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I wish some more editors would get involved here. It appears that the article is being pared back to nothing. The AfD was unsuccessful, but we seem to be headed to the same end result. Does this article even fall under BLP, given that there was no suicide nor gruesomeness?Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I definitely see BLP issues and have clearly pointed them out with my talk page addition . ---Steve Quinn (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

What you "pointed out" (I really hate that phrase; it pretends opinions are facts) was an argument that any speculation about whether Seth Rich was or was not a WikiLeaks source is a BLP violation. Not a single person on the page disagrees with that. What you completely failed to "point out" was why you think that stating that WikiLeaks offered reward money without any speculation about whether Seth Rich was or was not a WikiLeaks source is a BLP violation. This is the Biographies of living persons Noticeboard, where most if not all participants are quite familiar with what is and is not a BLP violation. Would you be so kind as to attempt to make your case here? Please explain why you think that simply stating that WikiLeaks offered reward money is a BLP violation. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to copy a question I posted on the talk page. It's a thought experiment which I believe clarifies the issue by removing the political flavor and other associations. Guy and others, I'd be interested in your take on this:

Here’s a thought experiment: Recall that Sony Pictures’ computers were hacked by the Guardians of Peace “GOP” around the time that the film “The Interview” was released. The film mocked and vilified the leadership of North Korea.

Suppose that your son was the executive chef of the Sony Pictures commissary. Shortly after the Sony hack, your son is brutally murdered in the middle of the night walking on the streets of Los Angeles. The GOP announces a reward for information leading to the conviction of the killer.

As his parent you decry this phony insinuation and you state that to the press. The reward story gets temporary blip in media coverage and then fades to nothing. Do you think WP should report it in an article about your son’s murder? Do you think there’s any reason for an article about your son’s murder in the first place?

SPECIFICO talk 00:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

In the Murder of Seth Rich article, we have the following sources in the references section...

• "WikiLeaks offers $20,000 reward for help finding Omaha native Seth Rich's killer" --Omaha World-Herald
• "WikiLeaks offers $20,000 reward over murder of Democrat staffer Seth Rich" --The Daily Telegraph
• "WikiLeaks offers reward for help finding DNC staffer's killer" -- Washington Post

...but no mention of WikiLeaks offering a reward in the article. If WikiLeaks offering a $20,000 reward is a BLP violation in the body of the article, why isn't it a BLP violation in the references section? --Guy Macon (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Guy, those refs appear to be left over from article text that was removed. Could you comment on the North Korea/Sony Pictures scenario above? SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure. I will address your North Korea/Sony Pictures scenario. You added something that you designed to lead the reader in a particular direction: "The reward story gets temporary blip in media coverage and then fades to nothing". Change that to "The reward story gets the same amount of media coverage that the Wikileaks reward is getting" and the answer is the same as it is with the Wikileaks reward; include the fact that a reward was offered. We don't censor articles based upon what some editors think the well-sourced material implies. And yes, I would feel the same way even if it was my son who was murdered and I hated North Korea.

Also, you are wrong about the refs. They are used as sources for other material in the article. If a ref has a 15 next to it, look for in the article.

Now that I have answered your question, please answer the question D.Creish asks below. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Several editors have asked in what way could simply mentioning "WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction" violate BLP. No one has offered a succinct, rational explanation. Specifico, would you care to? D.Creish (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I can give you a reason (not one I personally agree with) - by indirectly indicating the subject was the source of the leak to wikileaks it can be seen as implying the subject acted inappropriately (legally, ethically etc). Something we should avoid in BLP's without strong sourcing. Even though wikileaks explicitly state 'this should not be taken as blah blah' - that is actually worse, as human natures response to smoke/fire. "Well if they deny it, it must be true". And they are not actually denying it. The reason *I* dont think think its a problem is that I do not think even if the subject was linked to wikileaks, this is a negative. Not everyone shares that opinion, especically in the US political arena. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Can an AfD result be overturned by contested assertions of triviality?

Quite aside from WikiLeaks, editors at this article talk page are now claiming (1) the idea that Rich was sober when he left the place he was last seen is a BLP violation, (2) anything allegedly trivial about Rich is a BLP violation, and (3) WP:BLP applies to this article even though this was not a suicide and there's nothing gruesome in the article. Please note that an AfD resulted in no consensus, and so the article was kept; what's happening now is that the article is being gradually deleted on the mistaken premise that everything in it can be deleted if there is no consensus to keep it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

A "Keep" close at AfD isn't an endorsement of specific content within that article. See WP:ONUS. This slippery slope argument is unfounded. Geogene (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Supporters of deletion during the AfD said that the article is trivial. No consensus during the AfD resulted in keep. Now people who supported deleting the article are saying that anything they regard as trivial can be removed unless there's consensus to keep it, which will seemingly result in deletion of the article by attrition. It is a slippery slope indeed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

anything they regard as trivial can be removed unless there's consensus to keep it. Yes. Exactly. Geogene (talk) 01:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Geogene, wouldn't that mean that any AfD that closes with "keep because no consensus to delete", can be followed by de facto deletion because no consensus supports keeping anything in the article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I routinely remove sourced content that isn't backed by consensus, if I feel I have a valid reason for doing so. I'm not concerned about any larger philosophical implications of that. Geogene (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you agree that editors should not remove content merely because of no consensus? There has to be some plausible policy-based rationale beyond "no consensus", right? WP:Preserve disfavors complete removal of undisputedly well-sourced material.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The question is irrelevant because it misrepresents the motivations of the other editors, who have voiced policy based concerns about that content. Geogene (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I really don't like it when people casually throw around the word "misrepresents" given that the word is synonymous with lying. I was asking you a general question without reference to specific editors. If you would agree with the general principle, then we could have a civil discussion about whether the general principle is being respected at the article in question. I'm not going to continue this with my honesty being questioned.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, throwing in WP:PRESERVE does not support the argument for keeping material that is trivial or BLP. This editing policy advocated by Anythingyouwant, is still in agreement with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. The trivial information contradicts WP:UNDUE and the BLP content contradicts good editing behavior according to BLP.

So the point is, "Neutral point of view" is mentioned in this WP:PRESERVE section, at the tippy top, and I quote: "Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability and No original research." I think it would benefit Anythingyouwant to read the policy he or she is advocating.

Also in the section beneath PRESERVE is WP:CANTFIX which states, "What Misplaced Pages is not describes material that is fundamentally inappropriate for Misplaced Pages; and WP:UNDUE discusses how to balance material that gives undue weight to a particular viewpoint, which might include removal of trivia...". I think that is sufficiently on point. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Probable BLP issue

Just prior to lock-down on this article I belatedly discovered what appears to be content that contradicts WP:BLP. Specifically, the article now states "Rich left the Lou's City Bar in Columbia Heights at 1:45 am and told the bar manager he would go to a nearby bar. The bar manager stated that Rich was not drunk or even tipsy." Each sentence is a trivial detail, that has no bearing on the topic, and which casts the victim in a negative light. There appear to be no underlying rationales that show these sentences support the topic. Given these cast the victim in a negative light, for no good reason, they may actually produce more unnecessary anguish for the victim's family.

Although these are apparently based on a Newsweek source, Misplaced Pages is not Newsweek and is not a newspaper , . Also, just because a bartender said this does not make it noteworthy. In fact, given that a non-notable person said this, meaning the bartender, these statements carry no weight and have no relevance pertaining to notoriety and BLP. Additionally, there is no way to determine the veracity of the statements by the bartender. Historically, in the years prior to this incident, we don't know how accurate his statements are when recounting details to others. We just do not have this information.

Given that these sentences seem to serve no purpose other than imitating news reports hungry for every detail, it seems these should be removed per BLP. Hence, I am requesting that an Admin remove this material. If more discussion is required after its removal (if that happens), I am thinking that can happen on the talk page.. Also, there are other editors engaged on the talk page who, I think, probably agree with what I have said. But I won't bring them into the discussion unless it is deemed necessary. There is also some history pertaining to attempts to remove this material and its ultimate restoration in the edit history, and on the talk page, just prior to lock-down. I can add diffs for that, if it is required or if it helps Admins to make a decision on this matter. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I endorse this request. It's disgraceful that a litany of SYNTHy personal details have been imposed on this article. They should be removed and all editors should be warned not to reinsinuate this content. SPECIFICO talk 03:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Roy Moore, Kim Davis (county clerk), Troy Newman (activist)

Persistent vandalism of same-sex marriage related articles including Roy Moore, Kim Davis (county clerk) and Troy Newman (activist) all originating from User_talk:2602:301:771A:DDAF:5055:3F2E:DCC9:84E7. Request block of vandalism only account User_talk:2602:301:771A:DDAF:5055:3F2E:DCC9:84E7. 166.70.217.188 (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. --S Philbrick(Talk) 00:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

User_talk:107.77.192.10 is also being used as a vandalism only account, same targets -- same sex marriage related Bios. 166.70.217.188 (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Jeremiah Godby - AfD

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

Please weigh in on the AfD: "Subject appears to be a non-notable runner who promotes "natural medicine" by running across the country. There are a few mentions in small, local newspapers from 2011. The current article has a very promotional tone that is derived mostly from self-published sources close to the subject. At best, notability is due to one event." Delta13C (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

CRAIG TARO GOLD

The Craig Taro Gold entry is simply a self-promotional commercial violating Misplaced Pages's three core content policies: 1) NPOV 2) NPOV)V and 3) NOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.7.87.194 (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Niraj Antani

Hey all, this article needs some help, esp. from those who edit politicians' articles frequently. I think there's too much "administrative" fluff in there, but that's just me. What I know is that there has been serious vandalism, a BLP problem or two, and likely POV editing possibly from both sides. I may have to semi-protect it if it continues; I handed out two indefinite blocks already, I think. Anyway, your help is appreciated, both in turning it into a better article and in keeping an eye on out. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the page and will keep my eyes open for an vandalism. Meatsgains (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Paul Fix (racing driver)

ZoeyHolley keeps deleting updates made to this page that are accurate about Mr. Fix from a recent Trans Am race. In order to show the full history of Mr. Fix's career, such updates are important.

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.204.110 (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason your edit is being reverted is because you have not provided a reliable source for support. Meatsgains (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

References

1. https://vimeo.com/178902235

David Schmidley

The Misplaced Pages article says "The Oklahoma State University Faculty Senate called for Schmidly's resignation" 1. OSU has a Faculty Council, not Senate 2. The Source (USA Today)says something to the effect faculty leaders called for resignation, not that the Council (or Senate)so voted. The Faculty Council never voted to ask for Schmidly's resignation, nor did it censure or vote lack of confidence. 3. During that period I was Vice Chair and then Chair of the Faculty Council. For various reasons I made sure there were no such votes. Basically, I wanted to avoid the trap the New Mexico faculty got into. In NM it turned into faculty v. The People. That is what would have happened in Oklahoma. At OSU our strategy was the high road. CHEERS! Bob Darcy Regents Professor Emeritus, Political Science and Statistics, OSU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B8B7:F9C0:1CB7:C82:4ABF:5BAA (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Chimezie Ndubuisi

My Chimezie Ndubuisi Uduma from Ebonyi State Nigeria, I am the son of Ndubuisi, the son of Uduma Udu of Ebunwanna Edda, in ebonyi state Nigeria... I was born on the 14th of April 1993. I obtained my first school leaving certificate at Orinta Primary School,in Afikpo South in Ebonyi State, Nigeria, I also schooled at Etiti Edda Technical Secondary School, also in Afikpo South in Ebonyi State, Nigeria.... I was single handedly raise by Mr. & Mrs. Agwu Eseni From Ndi-ba Edda, in Etiti Edda Autonomous Community in Afikpo South, also in Ebonyi State Nigeria. The first son of Mr. & Mrs. Ndubuisi Uduma — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meziend (talk • contribs) 23:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Meziend: What were you hoping to accomplish by posting on WP:BLPN? Thanks Meatsgains (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Dana Nicole Bradley Homicide

Hello. This article is about a highly notable criminal case ("one of the largest and most costly murder investigations in Newfoundland’s history"), with loads of sources "out there" including a book published in 2003. But it is unsourced and has, from its inception, contentious material about living people. If it was up to me, I would WP:BLPDEL it and recreate it as a stub ("Murder of Dana Bradley" would be a better title). Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• That is a massive clusterfuck of BLP violations. Names of non-notable people, addresses of non-notable people, accusations of suspect-coercion against named people. All unsourced. I have removed most of the glaring stuff. But I am not sure its salvagable in its current state. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Ripoff Report

Is an article to which WP:BLP clearly applies.

is an edit which several editors and IPs seem desirous of retaining within this article.

The edit specifies that the site is "Private, for-profit" and run by a specific living person. (I note that the use of "private" seems useless, as most sites which are not government-owned are "private" including all ".com" sites in the first place.)

First part cites Australian sources for a lawsuit against Google for failing to remove searches affecting them from Ripoff Report. This material appears related to Google, but no to the Ripoff Report article, and seems oriented to specific Australian law, not applicable to the website. Where the case was not against Ripoff Report, Ripoff Report was not affected by the lawsuit, and was not represented in the lawsuit, that it is not relevant to the article at hand.

Part two uses http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/08/25/ripoff-report-publisher-hammered-in-9th-circ.htm as a source for:

Ripoff Report's publisher, Xcentric Ventures, LLC, unsuccessfully sued consumers and their attorneys for malicious prosecution in federal district court in Phoenix, Arizona in 2011. In August 2015, the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals published their order affirming the district court's order dismissing the case. The ruling notes that Xcentric had sued over the consumers' underlying attempted racketeering extortion claim, which "alleged that Xcentric attempted to extort money by encouraging third parties to post negative reviews, manipulating the posts to highlight negative reviews and to further highlight the negative reviews if the businesses posted rebuttals, and then charging high fees to 'turn the negative into a positive.'" "The claim was tenable because a district court had previously held that similar allegations stated an extortion claim against Xcentric," the 9th Circuit wrote in its order

Where UNDUE seems a major issue.

Ripoff Report's publisher, Xcentric Ventures, LLC, sued consumers and their attorneys for malicious prosecution in federal district court in Phoenix, Arizona in 2011. In August 2015, the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case. The decision held "The claim (of extortion) was tenable because a district court had previously held that similar allegations stated an extortion claim against Xcentric," the 9th Circuit wrote in its order.

Appears to me to be of proper weight here, and the "extended play" version appears to be overlong and detailed, verging on a POV edit.

Part three is an OR screed.

In 2015, the ] stated that, although the Ripoff Report homepage shows the tag lines "By Consumers, for consumers" and "Don't let them get away with it. Let the truth be known", the site allows competitors, and not just consumers, to post comments. The Ripoff Report home page also says: "Complaints Reviews Scams Lawsuits Frauds Reported, File your review. Consumers educating consumers", which allows a reasonable inference that the Ripoff Report encourages negative content. Moreover, Ripoff Report's webmaster affirmed that positive posts about a company are not allowed in the website. Therefore, the court concluded that the website's owner is not a neutral publisher, because, through large fees that companies must pay for the website's advocacy programs, it has an interest in, and encourages, negative content.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9d2c2ba9-efa2-4e58-9f82-16534eab2023 |title=Federal court rules against Ripoff Report in CDA case |date=23 September 2015 |accessdate=19 August 2016}}</ref><ref name=utah-court>{{cite web |title=Ripoff Report and Ed Magedson: Federal court rules against the website |date=30 August 2015 |url=http://www.presto.news/ripoff-report-ed-magedson-lawsuit-utah-6153646570.html |accessdate=19 August 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=Judge ] |title=Case No. 2:13-CV-00926 |date=27 August 2015 |url=https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2428558/vision-security-v-xcentric-ventures.pdf |accessdate=19 August 2016 |format=PDF}}</ref>

This uses http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9d2c2ba9-efa2-4e58-9f82-16534eab2023 which is a blog in esse from "Internet Defamation Removal Attorneys".

It also uses http://www.presto.news/ripoff-report-ed-magedson-lawsuit-utah-6153646570.html which is not WP:RS by a mile as far as I can tell. No clear editorial control, no sign that it has ever been used for any articles at all on Misplaced Pages. No author indicated at all. And the language "The Ripoff Report website is notorious for publishing undocumented and anonymous complaints about any company or any individual" appears to indicate that the "source" here is far from a neutral bystander.

Lastly, the edit uses https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2428558/vision-security-v-xcentric-ventures.pdf which is absolutely a "primary court source." And this case was simply a denial of direct reconsideration of a ruling made by the same judge. Which is, in fact, one of the least significant court documents imaginable.

In short, edit warriors intent on demonstrating that the Ripoff Report site is engaged in "extortion", and that it is run by a named living person are violating Misplaced Pages policies on WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:BLP, WP:RS etc.

Would others kindly examine the edits at issue, please? Collect (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• I cant see that WP:BLPGROUP applies (which would be the only way BLP could be applicable), since apart from the founder (who may or may not have anything to do with the daily running of the website) its staffing is not exactly visible. It could be 5 people, it could be 50. I agree there are issues with primary sourcing (court documents) and unreliable sourcing (websites that do not demonstrate reliability), but I dont think there is a BLP issue to answer as all the alleged misdoings are clearly attributed to the entity 'Ripoff Reports' rather than an indentifiable person. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
• Just to clarify - if we did apply BLPGROUP, there are issues with sourcing, but if we dont, those issues still exist. The only difference for me is that one would require urgent removal with discussion to include, the other can wait while a discussion on the reliability/undue-ness of the material is conducted. Personally I dont think this falls under BLPGROUP to require the first. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Heath Evans

Football analyst Heath Evans apparently made a Twitter comment a few days ago about dangerous bicyclists; he drew some critical responses from cycling advocates and issued an apologetic tweet. Now an assortment of IP editors have been adding criticism and hostile characterizations of Evans. His Twitter page does have a few related posts, but I can find no coverage at all about this kerfuffle in reliable third party sources (and none have been offered), so it appears to me that the multiple efforts to add negative commentary to his article violate WP:BLP as well as our neutral point of view policy as expressed by WP:WEIGHT. Additional viewpoints are invited. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Dragan Vasiljkovic

My name is Bradley Slowgrove and would like all references to me on the Misplaced Pages article on Dragan Vasiljkovic deleted. For instance it says that I was in The Netherlands to negotiate some sort of deal to have Dragan Vasilkovic's case transferred to the International Criminal Tribunal. This is clearly false as it is legally impossible to have a case under the Australian Extradition Act transferred to the ICTY. Check it and you will find there is no procedure. Secondly ICTY jurisdiction cuts off at the end of 2004 and all indictments in the ICTY had to be issued by the end of 2004 and all this is in 2010. When the press unnecessarily rang me in The Netherlands to confirm this ludicrous impossible story I told them it was incorrect and why but they went ahead and published it anyway. I supposed they assumed that because I was in Holland I would not find out about it.

Next Allan Moore was not legally a "magistrate" but was a defendant in matter C3 of 2006 in the High Court sued for damages and habeas corpus in the High Court for imprisoning Mr. Vasiljkovic. This is easily verified. It is also obvious that all the allegations against Mr. Vasiljkovic are under the laws of war and no public official is protected by their office under the laws of war whether Serbian or Australian. That is why they are the laws of war and Australian and international law is the same. What do ypu think protects Australian troops in Afhanistan? The laws of war.. There is only official protection of state officials under the laws of peace . Most war criminals are state officials and the laws of war do not know "Aussies" are special. It is ridiculous if not ethnocentric or racist to assert that Mr. Vasiljkovic has no official protection and Allan Moore does because he is an "Australian"magistrate. There is no ground of professional misconduct known as "threatening a person with severe personal consequences"and in fact this happens usually every time you sue someone as Allan Moore had been on all material occasions. This is merely a lurid allegation that does not withstand scrutiny. I was not flagged by Dutch Police when entering The Netherlands the AFP knew I was in Holland only because I told them.

Use your common sense. When was a person's lawyer ever taking away from them while in jail for how he conducted their case to get them out of jail while their case is sill going on? The Bar Council and ADT cannot touch me until his case is over and there was no way they would let his real case get before the higher courts. Once they got rid of me it is obvious why no lawyer will go near anything I say and that is what they intended. It does not happen and the ADT has no jurisdiction over me regarding an ongoing case under federal law. I resigned from the NSW Bar over repeated political interference in his case by the Bar Council to protect Australian public officials that have no protection under the laws of war. The enemy on Australian soil cannot imprison a soldier that fought against that enemy under flag and in uniform in an armed conflict. It is Croatia that alleges and it is accepted Mr. Vasiljkovic was a Serbian military commander and it is Croatia that raises the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Got it now.It is not that hard just try thinking with the other side of your brain. I note that Mr. Vasiljkovic would have served more than his sentence before he was indicted in Croatia applying the sentencing principles attached to article 24 of the ICTY Statute. Not even the Nazis or Stalin have done what has happened in this case and I mean the real Nazis and Stalin not that on television. They have done all this in public and in plain sight right before everyone's eyes. The laws of war and Geneva are universal and global do not care whether Vasiljkovic was in prison in Australia or Croatia. You cannot imprison Mr. Vasiljkovic for near 10 years in Australia and claim his imprisonment all starts again when he lands in Croatia. What gets me the is that the press is still after him despite 10 years jail including 3 years in solitary before he was indicted by Croatia. It has never happened anywhere. None of it including putting Vasiljkovic in jail without evidence and then barring him proving his innocence to get out and there is more still but not enough room. When you point it out to the "Aussie"state official they then ruin and rob you for threatening them. No person with an I.Q above that of a pigeon could possibly believe that any of this is the law. You do not need to be a lawyer to know something is rotten.

I have stayed silent in the Vasiljkovic case for years but once it is finalized I intend to publish and one thing I do not lack is unimpeachable evidence. Just take time to think about the oddness of the Australian proceedings as represented in your article and any objective smart person should know that there is something strange about it all including the disappearance of his lawyer ( Geneva counsel). For instance there is no High Court order putting Mr. Vasiljkovic in jail. Courts do not and cannot authorize "manhunts". Courts adjourn before making any order of imprisonment until the person is brought before them and put in the dock and only then an order can be made. Custody must be taken away first by the executive government before Courts can make an order CONTINUING their imprisonment. Read the High Court order and it does not put Mr. Vasiljkovic in jail. In western democracies a person gets their liberty from the common law not from the state including any court order. Think and you may discover a massive scandal right before your very eyes. What I have said above is only a taste. Remove my name now. It is all before your eyes if you look and think. I am not in an "I said they said"situation. Tell me is there anything in the Australian proceedings that says that the person sent to Croatia IS Dragan Vasiljkovic? Was he for the second 5 year imprisonment brought before a Court or a magistrate by the AFP and identified or was he taken straight to jail for 5 years by the AFP and then sent to Croatia? The answer is he was not identified by a Court or a magistrate so far as Australian law is concerned.The person in Croatia might be an actor and not Dragan Vasiljkovic. The proof can found on the Australian public record if you know where to look. I will give you a hint the AFP had no arrest warrant for him when they grabbed him in their"manhunt".They had to get rid of Vasiljkovic to cover up the fact that he should not have been arrested to start off with. Mrs Solon is your answer to show that the Commonwealth government has done this before only this is much worse and they had to go on with it to get away with it. I think I have said enough to have my name removed.

Generally I do not see how it is in accordance with Misplaced Pages's policy to cite newspaper reports as primary sources concerning any of the three armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. Every ICTY indictment must be supported by prima facie evidence and if research into the evidence and findings of the ICTY is done you get a much different picture to anything that appears in the press. For instance there is no finding of any armed conflict at all in the former Yugoslavia until at Kijevo on 26 August 1991 with JNA involvement some three weeks after Mr. Vasiljkovic left the Krajina. Croatia was not recognized by Australia until 16 January 1992. So there is no war and no Croatia for two thirds of the Croatian allegations against Mr. Vasiljkovic. Skirmishes like Glina are not "armed conflict". Of Course Croatia has a different propaganda version of the war than everyone else. One that the ICTY has refused to hear when dismissing the many Croatian amicus curiae applications and one that Mr. Vasiljkovic is barred from challenging in a Croatian Court. Bradley Slowgrove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.118 (talk) 07:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The material about you seems tangential at best, and, unless Misplaced Pages ends up with a proper article about you finding you to be specifically "notable", WP:BLP rather supports removal of the material from this article. Collect (talk) 07:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Nate Parker

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

This is a sensitive entry currently in the news (in very, very brief: includes discussion of sexual assault allegations, acquittal), including reference in the press to these events being addressed on subject's Misplaced Pages page. Both the entry itself and discussion at the talk page could benefit from additional attention from uninvolved editors. I'll note I also requested the entry's GA status be considered for reassessment, owing to the instability of the page and new problems of due weight (the controversial section of the entry has expanded but the other sections have not).

Worth noting also that some of same concerns may apply to the entry for Parker's film The Birth of a Nation (2016 film).

Thanks in advance to those who are up for having a look at this. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Dave Fedor

The Dave Fedor article is a mess. It looks like the writer may have made a number of template mistakes. I'm not sure to what extent this is a violation, as opposed to simply needing to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C3:8002:8F10:2C98:DA62:E8E5:8AAA (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It appears the issue has been resolved. A simple revert seemed to suffice.---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP or WP:CRYBLP?

The following RfC is either an example of following WP:BLP or WP:CRYBLP, depending on which side you are on:

Talk:Murder of Seth Rich#Should the WikiLeaks reward be mentioned in the article?

We could use some more eyes who are familiar with what our BLP policy actually says. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

mika brzezinski

"Donald Trump in a tweet at 1:29 PM on Aug. 22, 2016, called her Joe Scarborough's "very insecure long-time girlfriend" and a clown."

This does not belong in the first paragraph of an article like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.174.242.163 (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Fixed by Bentogoa.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories of the United States presidential election, 2016

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.

This article contains a section that had been called " Poor health theory" which rebuts the hoax regarding Clinton's health. It has been repeatedly blanked on the charge the entire section is a BLP violation (I'm guessing the editors in question mean it is a BLP against Donald Trump since it mentions the hoax originated from his campaign). It is shown here in the archives in the section beginning

I attempted to open a RfC here after the editors involved tried to blank a section of content that provided specific sources that undermined the conspiracy theory/hoax, however, they've got around that by just blanking the entire RfC.

NeilN has had to semi-protect this article due to socks inserting attacks, but it appears there is a more entrenched group of editors who want to transform the article from a rational analysis to a pro-conspiracy rant. Unfortunately, the article is under 1RR so not much more can be done. An analysis of whether this is a BLP violation against Trump, though, would be appreciated. Unfortunately, since the RfC is now being deleted I have to bring it here (unless they delete this as well). We had a previous issue with pro-CTers trying to delete the "False Claims" section from the Birther article on the charge it was a BLP violation against those making the false claims, this seems to be a replay. LavaBaron (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump's false campaign statements

You are invited to participate in Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution