Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:50, 9 August 2014

• 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
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Jacqueline Fernandez

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

There's been ongoing disputes about the subject of the articles date of birth. ] had dates of birth that was a combination of sources. Two sources gave a month and a day but no year, one of which was a twitter source, the third was a source with just a year. I removed them because to my view it's original research we can not take the sources add them together and get a full DOB as this qualifies as WP:OR. One editor has disagreed with my assessment of the sources and requirement. It's been discussion and no edit wars so no issues with User:Bollyjeff I thought this just might be a good way for a BLP consensus for DOB as this issue has been onging for more then a year by the talkpage. Dear lord why are Bollywood articles DOB BLP info crazy? Lol thanks folks. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's just one of the sections ] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Look, I can give a dozen sources that have the entire date if you want, for example: ,,,,. The trouble is that these are lower quality sources than what have been provided, and there are also some lower quality sources that give a different date of her DOB. Therefore, I thought it best to use the highest quality sources, including here own twitter and video accounts to provide the best reliable information. If you remove it totally, some IP will just add it back the next day anyway, and probably with a lower quality source, and maybe the wrong date. There is no policy saying that the month, day and year must all come from the same source. BollyJeff | talk 12:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Bollyjeff, There absolutely is, it's called Original Research or WP:OR, if you read this subsection WP:SYNTHESIS. It states quite explicitly, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources" Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay then, lets just wait and see what others here have to say. Would it be preferred to give just her month and day of birth with one source, and no year; or give just her year of birth with another source, and no month and day? Wait, how about month and day in one section with source a, and year in another section with source b? See how silly it sounds when you put it that way? BollyJeff | talk 18:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not a wait and see thing though. The only thing I would say to include is the year of birth only, You are right that it would be super silly just to do the days. Sadly Bollywood articles seem to have particular issues with the DOB, we would prefer to not source it at all if we can't fin multiple reliable sources that agree. The main person I know that work BLP in Bollywood is User:TheRedPenOfDoom, I've pinged him to get his opinion, I highly respect his knowledge and he's very fair in regards to sourcing, if it's good or bad they will let you know regardless how you feel. I think it's important to intimate again though to I'm not upset with BollyJeff and I don't think he's upset with me, just a difference in policy interpretation and this has already stretched since 03/13 lol! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer that you do not call in editors that think like you to take your side. I know this editor, and have not had good experiences with them. Can a random BLP expert or two please chime in here? BollyJeff | talk 23:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

When in doubt, use the reliable source that has at least a year. If in doubt, go to WP:RSN to get reliable source info. And keep researching. It's out there somewhere. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. To prove one of my points above, someone just added a bogus birthdate. It was pretty stable for a while, before my previous sources were removed. BollyJeff | talk 02:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And again. Almost every day, some editor adds one of the two conflicting dates with some bad source into the infobox. I think that we are better served by having my original date sources there to protect against this. What is the harm of using one reliable source for the day and month, and another for the year? BollyJeff | talk 15:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Bollyjeff here. This is not, in my opinion, original research. It's simply using one secondary source for the month and day of birth, while using another reliable source for the year of birth. How is that original research? It is not synthesis in any meaningful way. The issue is that HiaB is treating the birthdate as if it were one whole item, when it is actually three distinct items: month of birth, day of birth, and year of birth. In theory--though not likely--a separate reliable source could be used to source each piece. Doing so is not original research, and is certainly not, in my view, a violation of BLP policy. LHM 16:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Not synthesis. If we can write "She was born on August 11", and "She was born in 1985" in two different sentences, then it is not synthesis to write "She was born on August 11, 1985" in the same sentence. Synthesis would be writing "... so because of this she was too young to do such-and-such in 2003" without an explicit source. Just combining two facts in one sentence that do not imply any more than their combination is not synthesis. --GRuban (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. It seems fairly legalistic to take the position that HiaB has done here. LHM 23:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess that's why we are here, to see if I'm offbase, I still think it's fairly straightforward and legalistic when working with BLPS, especially when there is multiple sources that conflict each other. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that it is a "reliable source" for an age when it is merely celebrity gossip site using an out of context "28-year old" tossed off as a random adjective. If it were "The 28 year old is still playing teenagers in the recent youth oriented XXXX" or "The 28-year old sat through 3 hours of make up every day to play the role of the old crone" where there is an indication that the age was validated, but that is not the case here. And given that the age has been multiply contested, we need to get it right. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Gossip mag? Okay here are two of the biggest newspapers in India, The Times of India and Hindustan Times recently saying the same thing. Your friend Mr red pen is known to be found of removing content and fighting consensus rather than contributing to the project in a meaningful manner. I think this is pretty much settled with the agreement of the un-involved third parties above. BollyJeff | talk 22:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually there really isn't a consensus here, you have three seperate editors saying what I"m saying and three editors saying what you are saying. and if there is to be one it will need an admin to determine that consensus. Yes RedPenOfDoom removes a lot of content but it's content that is usually inaccurate or poorly sourced. It's similar to pruning trees. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I count one with you, whom you called to come here, so it should not count. I could bring many to support me if I wanted to. There are two with me, and a third who was basically a split vote. Is there an administrator out there who can weigh in please? BollyJeff | talk 01:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there any genuine dispute about this woman's date of birth? I fully understand the theoretical points being made here, but we have articles with unsourced negative statements and even falsehoods that need attention, not to mention articles that could use general improvement and upgrading, so can we limit the arguing about things that are of peripheral concern? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how to answer that? This guy Hell in a Bucket removed fairly well sourced information and then came here to argue about it. What else can I do? There is source of her tweeting and speaking what her birth day is, and what is isn't. Then lots of sources for the year. I don't understand why it's not enough for these people who love to argue. I would like to work on other stuff if they would back off. What would you suggest? BollyJeff | talk 01:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Newyorkbrad I said the year only because of multiple sources that disagree and the combination of two sources when the year of birth is really the only reliable info we have. I'm somewhat surprised to hear BJ think I'm redpen which is pretty easily apparent to see it's not the scase if you actually look at our editing histories, usually you hear that nonense from new users but I'd like to further point out that I am not redpen and my typing quality or lack thereof should prove that added to the fact we edit at the same times a lot. As to the other part yes there is disputed sources on the date of birth as there is in loads of Bollywood article...BJ just because you don't like a contributor does not mean you can discount a highly experienced and respected editor like RPOD and throw out their opinion. I didn't ask because I know he would agree I ask because he is one of the most experienced and active editors in Bollywood articles and he can give a much needed overall view and overall consensus as he is involved with quite a few. That being said calm down smoke a joint and try to assume a bit more faith, I've tried to make it perfectly clear what the issue is and I'm discussing it at length cordially and with respect to your and your opinions without assuming bad things about you so a little back in this direction would be nice. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I am a very nice person, but you are driving me to drink with this argument and bringing out my bad side. I want this to stop! Is the year still in dispute for you after seeing the above sources? If not 1985, then when? Or is it the day and month? Have you seen the video of her proclaiming those? What is the real problem at this point that is stopping you conceding? BollyJeff | talk 19:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

BJ if this is upsetting you then you are giving me way too much control over your actions...seriously. I've stated several times I have no objections to listing the year only and adding the month and day when we have a source that includes all three. But hey you know what when NYB sees the post and reads then he can make the decision. I've stated my only objection is combining the sources together to make a full date and that the consensus will be determined by an admin., NYB is one. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks; and sorry for getting mad at you. I have updated the article the way I think it should be. Let's see what NYB thinks. BollyJeff | talk 19:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Alan Guth

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

Can someone take a quick look and tell me if talk page edits like this and this, describing the subject of the page as a "fraud," requires intervention? I'm not conversant with the latest BLP rules and practices and I am in disputes with the editor in question on other fronts (original research, civility, editing and discussion practices, etc), so I think I'm the wrong person to even try to make the call. Thanks for taking a look.. -- SCZenz (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, saying that the subject of a BLP "looks like a fraud" is way over the top. I left a warning at User talk:Holybeef#July 2014 2. There is a related discussion at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I blocked Holybeef a couple of days ago for continuing to edit this and another article improperly. I believe this thread can be closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

George M. Church

George M. Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a disagreement at George M. Church (see talk page for discussion) that concerns a BLP. Leprof 7272 insists on putting COI/POV tags on the article, despite the fact that the subject has not edited the article since 2007. His partner has edited the article more extensively, lastly in July 2013. The article has been edited in-between and since then by multiple other editors. I note that the simple fact that someone with a COI has edited an article does not necessitate a COI/POV tag, if that person has not edited in a POV manner. There are also "primary sources" and "original research" tags on the article. Despite repeated requests, Leprof 7272 has not given any concrete examples of POV or OR, just stating that these problems are present and resists removal of the tags. The opinions of editors here are welcome. --Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

R'kitty offers a superb summary of her position, along with a misrepresentation of mine of equal quality. First, note, that I am a strong scientific proponent of the work of Profs Church and Wu, and of their joint work, scientifically and educationally at Harvard. I have no personal or professional bone to pick. I simply believe that Prof Church's and Prof Chao-ting Wu's (his spouse/partner's) populating the largest part of the Church article, personally, has lead to a promotional sense in that Misplaced Pages article, such that it mis-uses WP as an extension of Prof Church's faculty and other self-managed webpages. And, contrary to R'kitty's statements regarding repeated requests for concrete examples of POV or OR, I have repeatedly made clear (i) that per WP policies, primary sources cannot be used to establish the primacy of a scientific discovery, (ii) that to use them in this way is to conduct OR, and (iii) for a scientist and his partner to populate the vast majority of the article, and to do so with only such attributions to establish the primacy of scientific discovery consitutes, prima facie, a gross COI and POV issue. In addition, I note that there is no mention of anything negative in any material posted by these two (no mention of controversies following any of various statements or writings by Prof. Church). Here, in fact, is the last explicit statement made to R'kitty on this matter:

Note, I added the "" here in clarification; for the original, and further discussion, see .

Finally, the thing we do agree on is that "The opinions of editors here are welcome." Very welcome. I encourage editors reading this to skim the Talk page just linked, and to review the Edit Summaries for the article, noting the vast proportion of appearing material introduced en masse by Prof Church and his partner (vs. the relatively minor changes and additions made by others). Then, to examine my claim of the article's—Profs. Church and Wu's—reliance on primary sources to establish Prof. Church in the list of "firsts" that appear, vs. WP policies:

• WP:REDFLAG ("Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: ... claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest", etc.),
• WP:PSTS ("All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors.", etc.),
• etc.

—regarding the interpretation/OR that appears implicitly in all Church primary source claims. As well, to search the word "controversy" in the article, and then to look in (via Google or other search) on the various controversies that have followed Prof Church's ideas (real or media engendered, re: neanderthal comments to Der Spiegel, ideas in Regenesis, etc.), which, if they appear, receive only a single, positive line or two.

Bottom line, we cannot delete self-promotional text/articles offered by small personalities and organizations, but allow them from esteemed ones. The rules are made for everyone. A WP article largely created by the article's subject and his partner, an article that lacks any critical commentary/discussion of others in re: the subject's life and work, and that makes claims for primacy of discovery based on the article subject's primary publications, is, prima facie, a clear case for COI and POV review. I stand by my earlier, opening request at that Talk page, , to ask that these two editors no longer contribute to an article that so clearly personally interests them. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Although Leprof 7272's post is very long, she's done an excellent job illustrating the problem. --Randykitty (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You are thanked R'kitty, from the bottom of his/her heart. In future, perhaps a simple bravo (rather than brava). Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

That custom ambox at the top of the article has Leprof written all over it. I take the view that the other three amboxes sum up the article's issues, and that the signature Leprof six-clause sentence is unnecessary.--Launchballer 20:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The Cleanup tag has been edited to shorten, for reasons other than this editor's non-AGF insinuations. Otherwise, in response: source considered, and all deserved merit ascribed. I urge other editors to acquaint themselves with this User, en route to evaluating his message. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Tags are concerns with the contents of an article, and the whole point about them is to fix those concerns so they can be removed. The COI tag specifically is used to invite a review of the content given concerns that the article might lack neutrality (in either direction). This should obviously be done by an uninvolved editor. Once the content is deemed to be OK, the COI tag should be removed and replaced by a {{connected contributor}} one in the talk page. In an an ideal world what happens next is that people with a COI never edit the article at all, because it causes the concern about neutrality to resurface. Unfortunately, COI is a guideline, not a policy, and there's nothing in it that specifically prevents or forbids COI editors from editing the article themselves. So every time they edit instead of request an edit, the problem returns. On the other hand, there is an extremely large number of articles which are neglected because the only people interested in them also have a COI, which leads us to huge backlogs in the requested edits categories or simply doing a wink, wink when we see obvious COI edits as long as they're not too bad. I mention all this because Leprof 7272's suggestion that the COI editors stop editing is not actionable - there is no way to prevent someone from editing an article, COI or not, unless they are being disruptive and can be blocked solely for that. So it's best to just work with them. §FreeRangeFrog 20:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Note, this simple tag replacement cannot be quickly done, because—as the expert tag that appears there makes clear—expertise is needed to evaluate each individual claim (and there are many) of the preeminence of Church in each scientific discovery, priority that is currently only supported by primary sources from Church et al. In re: the request not being actionable—sorry, I see such actions being taken all the time here, by admins, and by editors acting through admins. The proposal is clearly actionable: first, make the request of these two editors to not to edit their own pages.If they are notable as individuals—and Prof Church clearly is—others will add to and maintain the page. If they have issues with content that is added or not added, they can raise the issues in Talk. Someone independent of the material can thereafter respond, and I have already offered to be such a one. Second, failing this, it becomes more difficult, but there are certainly other administrative actions that can be taken—again, such things are done all the time. And I would add that actions are elsewhere taken to restrict authorship, with less ample evidence of self-interest (and consequent COI/POV issues) than are clear here. But, again, a main issue has to do with failure to establish preeminence of discovery through independent secondary sources, and this is seeing some feedback, see next comment. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Leprof alerted me to this issue on my talk age. I think Leprof raises some legitimate issues here, and {{autobiography}} is probably warranted. As far as autobiographies go, this one really isn't all that bad, though. I'm used to more over-the-top, overt promotion (see Sharon Cuneta for an example), and this one seems almost balanced in comparison. However, the scientific studies are surely primary sources, and there are some interpretative claims made from them. For example, the article claims that Prof Church "published the first direct genomic sequencing method in 1984" and uses as a citation his own work from 1984. It may very well be true that this is the first work to do so, but we should have a secondary source say so. I'm not sure it needs all those cleanup tags, but it does need a bit of cleanup. It would probably help to alert a relevant WikiProject (maybe WikiProject Medicine?). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the Review, NRP. Note to others, NRP and I have been on the same and opposite sides of opinions, and I appreciate the objectivity, thoughtfulness, and subtly he brings to his review (and integrity, note admission of my posting to him). The issue with the 1984 citation is one of the series of cases I have tried to call attention to, with regard to needing secondary sources for claims of discovery preeminence. As for how this compares to other autobiographies, I cannot say, though we should wait until someone interested in Neanderthals has had their say. I can suggest that subtlety in self-promotion may be a characteristic of the more learned, and Profs Church and Wu are clearly that, but such does not make this aim acceptable here. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• As I see it, the problem mainly is that the tags contain allegations that basically boil down to Leprof saying that there may be issues. That primary sources are used does not imply POV. There is no interdiction to subjects editing their own biography. Technically speaking, this is not an autobio either, because most of the content was added by other persons (one of them the subject's wife, but still). I am not at all against tagging pages if there are problems, but if challenged, the problems should be identified (with sources showing that the allegations are correct) or the tags removed. Just saying that you think there may be a POV does not suffice. Neither of the COI editors (the subject and his wife) have been combative as yet. Both have edited quite in the open under their own names (unlike everybody here -me included- participating in this discussion) and have not attempted to hide anything. Unless sources can be presented that show that their edits are POV or, worse, false, I do not see any reason for a tag (except for an "involved contributor" tag on the talk page). --Randykitty (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

As I stated, this is a disingenuous representation of the case. EVERY appearance of a primacy of discovery claim in this article that cites an article by Prof Church is at issue (COI, POV issues), as it is not independent. When the citation is a primary source, the issue is a deeper, broader one: add Original Research to the preceding issues, as posting by the editor, even if not the author or his wife themselves, reflects original research to have selected that one primary source, deciding that it was authoritative in making the primacy claim. Do you need a list of all of these occurences — to clarify when a sentence in a scientific article is making a claim about a discovery? To clarify that the source is authored by the article title or his wife? That the source is a primary one? All of this is prima facie apparent. Your claim that I am not being specific enough is specious; I have stated the foregoing repeatedly. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• LeProf, please learn about links as in this edit where you have used an ugly and wrong format to link to this page and in your extended content box above where you have copied a quotation instead of linking to it. If you copy and paste, the reader will always be suspicious that you have modified the text to suit your thesis. If you link, no such suspicion can exist.

You are incredibly and, probably incurably, long winded. You have expended about 8k bytes on this page alone over a simple question of a COI tag. I agree with Randykitty: there have been no COI edits for a year so a COI tag at the top of the page is not needed. If you still think the page is biassed, don't moan about it - change it! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for my lacking your technical prowess at properly and beautifully linking material at Misplaced Pages, RH. I am afraid this discrepancy in our skill levels (just as other discrepancies between us) will have to remain. Otherwise, clearly I was in error thinking that you might act consistent here with long patterns elsewhere, of require editorial independence to those contributing substantially to articles. I am saddened at this missed opportunity to find what appeared would be clear common ground. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree the COI tag is not a badge of shame and it should be removed and any remaining problems should simply be fixed.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Issue of "just fix it" already addressed above, to User FreeRangeFrog. I cannot make sense of the badge of shame statement in the context of a discussion where the claim is made that editing by a scientist and his wife, making "first to discover" scientific claims based (largely) on primary scientific sources, is suspect for COI, POV, and OR reasons. Sorry, je ne comprend pas. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

To address the one specific concern raised by NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs) above, I have added an independent source in this edit to document "the first direct genomic sequencing method". Strictly speaking, the source is not secondary, but it is an independent source that supports the accuracy and notability of the statement. I also agree with Randykitty (talk · contribs), RHaworth (talk · contribs), and Keithbob (talk · contribs) that the COI tag at the top of the article is not justified. In addition, the article does contain a significant number of secondary sources. Hence I have removed the attention banners at the top of the page. Boghog (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

First, user Boghog takes an example, fixes it, and declares problem solved — though the nice NinjaRobotPirate-provided example has been repeatedly offered as an example of the problem, and not the problem per se.

Second, Boghog does this correction of single example based on what he admits is "trictly speaking... not secondary" reference (though the issue is that use of non-secondary refs to establish primacy of discovery is to exhibit WP:OR on top of the POV and COI issues). Thankfully, the non-secondary source he offers is independent, and so we can acknowledge this as a partial, and so mediocre fix to one example of a large problem in the article (see responses to Randykitty, above). Well, a start.

Third, unlike Ninja's preface, and demonstrated integrity, Boghog fails to declare that he is a generally biased party (having opposed me repeatedly in various venues, over everything from the conformational rigidity of steroids to the a proper definition of natural products). Need I say, elsewhere as here, he is always right, and I am always wrong?

Fourth, while every one else here (including Randykitty, the original discussant) have expressed opinions, but left the article under discussion alone, and therefore respected the debate, editor Boghog instead edits the material being discussed. In modifying the document and issues being discussed, he hijacks the course of discussion, away from deciding if these two non-independent editors should be asked to recuse themselves from editing their own (their spouse's) article, and away from the broader, deeper issues of broadly operative OR, POV, and COI issues. In doing so, he muddies the water as to the matters being discussed. (How does one look to understand tags being discussed, when they are changed before discussion comes to a close?)

Hence, I propose Boghog let matters proceed fairly, instead of imposing his conclusion before discussion ends, especially given the matter of his bias. I will revert his edits, so a consensus can fully develop. After a consensus appears (and this takes more than the few days thus far), I will honour the decision of the POV and BLP communities.

As I fully expect to be reverted in this, by Boghog/friends, and so to see this discussion re-muddied: I ask if Boghog reverts, please, in spirit of fair play, some other editor, go to the Church article and revert (leave the article as it was at the beginning of Randykitty's start of this discussion). I will not revert a second time; if no one does, we are left trying to discuss the "moving target" of the original and his edits. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

After giving it an hour, and re-reading, top-to-bottom, the content here: I am moving the discussion on my COI/POV and OR objections to Prof Church and his wife Prof Wu being the most substantial contributor's to Prof. Church's article here at the English Misplaced Pages, and the nature of their non-independent editing, to the COI noticeboard, here . The discussion at the BLP noticeboard is not moving in any solid constructive direction, and is repeatedly failing to address the core issues (FreeRangeFrog and NinjaRobotPirate being the exceptions). My request that these two editors be asked not to edit this article is not being discussed. The matter that Original Research is required for primary sources to be used to make claims vis-a-vis being first in a scientific discovery is not being discussed (and while one editor tacitly acknowledges the substance of the issue by fixing one example, the rest are simply ignored). FInally, the fact that such claims, whether based on primary or secondary source, constitute COI and POV issues when the person making the edit is the author of the article (or his wife) is again not being discussed. Instead, focus has been on technical matters, or why I have not just fixed the tens of issues myself (exceptions, see above). I have asked the COI noticeboard to address the basic claims of COI, POV, and if possible, OR issues, and have separately asked Randykitty, who chose the original Noticeboard venue without discussion, to support me in this move. Please direct all further discussion there. Thank you. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

William B. Caldwell

William B. Caldwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yesterday, new editor @CrispinBurke: brought to me concerns that the article on William B. Caldwell "mischaracterize his service" in some ways he did not yet specify. I do not have the time to address this right now, and I don't want to let the matter drop since this is a BLP, so would someone mind looking into this? Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I assume the problem lies with the Dawood Military Hospital "scandal", and that seems rather well sourced (simple Google search shows this was a big deal). If there are counterweight sources CrispinBurke or anyone else want to offer up to make it more neutral, we can certainly consider them. §FreeRangeFrog 20:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

As already stated, the Dawoods Military Hospital investigation is the only issue on the page that "mischaracterize his service". The material is properly sourced with reliable sources supported each claim. One of the sources provides a quote from the deputy inspector general claiming there was no "attempt ... to delay our investigation ... or turn it off", which neutralizes the section. We could trim down the section in accordance to WP:UNDUE, but I don't think that would be necessary.Meatsgains (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

CrispinBurke (talk)I served directly under the general during the period in question (early 2012 until his retirement). I can even have him contact you to confirm that the Dawood scandal was generally unrelated to his retirement...he had already made the decision to retire (early 2012) before the Dawood allegations were even made (June 2012).

@Meatsgains and CrispinBurke: The supporting reference for the claim that the subject retired because of this issue is a primary one, which we obviously prefer not be used. Can we get a secondary source? If not, I would support removing the association between the controversy and his retirement. §FreeRangeFrog 23:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I tried to copy edit the article, and the section in question, per the given citations. I have no other opinion, except I am going to bed. Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

CrispinBurke I am relatively new to Misplaced Pages, so I hope I am doing this correctly. Several months before the results of the investigation were released (nearly one year), LTG Caldwell was announced as the next president of Georgia Military College. http://www.armytimes.com/article/20130226/NEWS/302260331/Retiring-3-star-lead-military-college — Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@CrispinBurke: Thank you. So between that and the fact that the claims of the subject's career being ended by the scandal through a primary source, I think it's safe to say we'd rather not have that information at all unless and until we have a citation to a reliable secondary source. §FreeRangeFrog 00:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog:This source refers to Caldwell's request to retire, "knowing that these substantiated allegations would directly prevent any future promotion or assignment to a position of importance and responsibility." I can appreciate CrispinBurke's loyalty to his old boss, but why should this not be mentioned? EricSerge (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@EricSerge: CrispinBurkeThe allegations weren't made until June of 2012. There's no secondary source I can find that far back, but LTG Caldwell had planned to retire sometime in very early 2012.

So really the question is not his retirement, but that he was allowed to retire as a Lieutenant General, despite the findings of the IG report? This based on the fact that he had served satisfactorily in his position for at least three years? Now, this is pure speculation as I have not yet found a source, but it seem the general was likely under investigation at the time he decided to retire. A source that backed that assertion would provide credibility to the investigation leading to his retirement. Major Burke, I can appreciate your loyalty to your old boss, but reliable sources say he got in trouble. If he got in trouble, in a career derailing way, it belongs in the article. These articles should not look like they were written by a PAO (though they often are). EricSerge (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@EricSerge: CrispinBurke The issue is the relationship between the IG investigation and retirement. The two are not connected. His decision to retire came prior to the allegations being made (initially in the Wall Street Journal in June of 2012, simultaneously voiced in a complaint to Congress), and well over a year (perhaps even 18 months) prior to the results of the investigation being released.

Ashok Chauhan

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

I'm in a content dispute over this BLP article with several IP's. The section "Controversies" contains claims about arrest warrants against the subject. The claims are supported by an article by Tim Sullivan (AP) from 2007, which was adapted/reprinted by other newspaper outlets, also cited in our article. However, a critical article by Mint (newspaper) has an update stating that "A Frankfurt court has also ruled that there are no crimincal proceedings against Chauhan and that the arrest warrant issued has been revoked." From what I have learned during my previous research, the business with education in India is a very dirty business, but I have a question: Is it appropriate to associate a living person in an encyclopedic article with arrest warrants that have been revoked? The last revert at least mentions that "the charges have been later cancelled" (my earlier addition/update), which is better but I have to ask for an independent opinion. My opponents cite WP:PUBLICFIGURE as an argument, and it might be a valid argument. What do you think about that? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes education does seem to be a dirty business. All users deleting the Controvery section (like you did) with edit summaries (very similar to yours) have been blocked as sock puppets of Writers Media, most probably a PR company. And I mean all users. You also have deleted the Controversy section claiming sources are required, disregarding that there are 7-8 extremely reliable sources (from Wall Street Journal to Deccan Herald to Associated Press to Tribune to Tehelka, all independent of each other unlike what you claim above) supporting the Controversies section in the exact manner as WP:PUBLICFIGURE dictates. What is foxing is that you write above, "I'm in a content dispute over this BLP article with several IP's." You use the word "I". You strangely do not make a mention of all the other sock accounts that deleted the Controversy section like you did. Should it be understood that you have some knowledge of those accounts? I think you an administrator should really be clarifying right now what's going on, whether you have any connection with the socks and whether you're in any communication with others off-wiki with respect to this article here?! 93.186.31.81 (talk) 11:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't be silly.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I said "business with education in India", I don't think that "education seems to be a dirty business", as you try to imply. There were not 7-8 extremely reliable sources when I questioned the claims, but several sources based mostly on the claims of Mr. Sullivan. Your team (?) repeatedly removed the update by Mint, only yesterday you or a related account reinstated the claim. I'm not in any way connected to Writers Media (btw, could you link their website, if there's any?) or to the socks operating here. This is what brought my attention to the article, another example of extremely tendentious and biased editing. I'm not a censor, I want to see a balanced article without someone's agenda, and that's why I asked for an independent opinion here, instead of reverting. The current revision and sourcing is not so bad, only the unnecessary claim A USA Today news mentions "he's a self-proclaimed philanthropist who is often surrounded by a phalanx of bodyguards: grim-looking men in polyester safari suits." is troubling and lacks context. In my opinon it borders with defamation unacceptable in an encyclopedic article. But that's just my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Your insinuation above that my "team (?) repeatedly removed the update by Mint" is really ridiculous and a quite silly and unwanted personal attack. Strike the comment and stop making childish personal attacks because someone pulled you up for blatantly bad edits. You're as bad an example of admin talk as they come by. If you're saying you're not related to Writers Media or to the socks, then I don't know whether to believe you for your word. You have still not answered one of the questions: are you in any communication with others off-wiki about this article here? (And please don't reply with another doltish personal attack) 93.186.31.81 (talk) 11.22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I roughly know how bad I am so I don't need your review. You implied in your first comment that I'm associated with some "Writers Media" or a sock farm damaging Misplaced Pages (a part of a team??) which is nonsense. I've never talked about this article off-wiki, I have no special interest in this particular article, I just want it to be written in a neutral and unbiased way, which is why I'm here. This is my 7th year of transparent editing on various topics on this project, I live thousands kilometers far from India and its problems. However, there's a lot of strange manipulation in articles about educational institutions in India, and false information might affect decisions of real people in real world, which is troubling. I firmly believe that the article was created with the intention to defame the subject in a wider effort to damage Misplaced Pages, I pointed out to it and I would do the same with any other problematic Misplaced Pages topic. Please understand that I'm not your enemy, refrain from further comments about me and my motives and discuss the article. Thank you for your understanding. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I really don't care about claims of 7 years of editing. What matters is if you understand BLP policy. And on the face of it, you don't have a strong grasp or even an average one imo. That's not a crime. You're not expected to know it all. But if you want to be taken seriously, read up more on the BLP policy. I don't think you should edit any biography, this or any other, with preconceived notions that any negative information is defamatory and all that Misplaced Pages should have are spanking clean bios. That's why sourcing is so relevant and I don't need to teach you that. If you're worried about defamation so much then you should be blaming all the news articles that report that this man is/was wanted for fraud in Germany. Simply report what the sources say. Don't use your "firm belief" POV editing to have only ultra clean biographies especially of such people by claiming that as charges have been dropped, even the news should be dropped. That's hilarious. Read WP:NPOV. If you've already read it, read it again. I think you're quite spaced out on your understanding of NPOV too. A balanced view doesn't mean only having sissy positive stuff & claiming negative stuff is being put only for sinister reasons. You sound almost delusional claiming that. Anyways I've removed the philanthropy stuff you were so worried about. So stop complaining & start reading up on policies. You need to. 93.186.31.81 (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, it seems you have been listing out links of your so called research you've done on this article and some other articles in some forum on Wikipediocracy.com. Is that true? You seem to have grandiosely claimed above that you have not discussed this article with anyone off-wiki. Can you give some clarification of what is really going on out here? Is there some ulterior motive that you have in editing this article (perhaps to prove something to your Wikipediocracy mates)? Please clarify. 93.186.31.81 (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This is over the top. I've checked your posts on Wikipediocracy.com. Not only are you quite comfortable interacting in forums infested with self-confessed sock account holders, banned editors and self-confessed paid editors (like Greg Kohs), you're even showing off your research on this and other articles to these very editors. What hypocrisy by an administrator here!!! Wow!!! Have clean hands first then try and whitewash biographies of all controversial material. I'm amazed at the audacity of your claim above of not having discussed this article off-wiki. Can we have some clarifications? Please stop editing the BLP as I do not think you have clean hands.93.186.31.81 (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the section only after someone intentionally reinstated outdated info about fraud charges. I posted here almost immediately after that. Previously, I removed promotional stuff etc. but never criticism. I wrote above that the current revision is acceptable to me, so your "whitewashing" hysteria is not needed. As for your latest fantastic revelation: All important facts I posted on this matter are on Misplaced Pages, not on Wikipediocracy. Wikipediocracy is an open forum, my comments there are transparent and anyone can read what I wrote there under my name. I reserve to myself the right to comment where I consider appropriate, and I don't need your approval. Btw, could you provide a link to a Wikipediocracy forum where I discuss the article Ashok Chauhan? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

mike smith

Subject deceased — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.160.35 (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

. Also, which Mike Smith? We have several dozen articles on folks called Michael Smith. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Mike Smith (television presenter) - but I don't see any problem here. Shritwod (talk)

The only reason I can think of is the belief that since he is no longer alive, he is no longer notable.--Auric talk 14:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Oooooh Auric, that smarts. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume the OP was asking us to remove the "living person" tag, etc. That has been done; thread can be closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Doan Hoang, on editing her own page

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

I've somehow gotten involved with an editor who turns out to be the subject herself, who has added a ton of information, initially unreferenced to her article. I reverted the information HERE because it was lists of WP:TRIVIA, however, she later proceeded to add her full biography and resume from the her website HERE and left a note on my talk page saying that I had no authority to edit the page. HERE. When I reverted the edit and replied that wikipedia is not supposed to be a resume, she got her lawyer to post a cease and desist. HERE I replied HERE and removed any incorrect citations HERE. But I get the feeling she is still upset about the whole thing and insists I am totally screwing up the page even though I've tried my best to keep it neutral and remove any offending and incorrect statements.

I really don't want to deal with legal issues but this is pushing WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO that I need your help to resolve. In the meantime, she is editing the page and fixing up the information, and I will try to cooperate and help her get things properly cited. And it did prompt her to update her bio on her official site to include all that new information, which is good. Thanks for hearing me out. -AngusWOOF (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC), updated -AngusWOOF (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this would be an unambiguous block per No legal threats, per this diff; https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAngusWOOF&diff=619631112&oldid=619605498 Tutelary (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely: I strongly advise you to report this legal threat at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. To add to the fun a new account has just appeared whose first edit has been to delete the COI flag from the article, which is suspicious to say the least. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Doan Hoang, and I'm not going to sue you. But could stop giving me a hard time? I tried to fix some incorrect information on my page (which a fan named Robert from Boston originally put up and wrote to me about it. People have changed it significantly since then, and it still had some misinformation and wasn't updated. When I recently tried to change it several times this year, AngusWOOF kept changing it back to the wrong info. It was REALLY, really, annoying after hours of trying to get it right. Can you imagine if it were you, that you saw information about you that wasn't true or was out of date, worked to change it, then someone undid your work? I didn't know how to use Misplaced Pages before. I didn't know there were talk pages. I didn't know you could undo someone's changes (and unfortunately, editors keep undoing facts about me.

This is one major issue I have with Misplaced Pages. The most reliable source (me) is now flagged as unreliable by AngusWoof, and when the info was wrong, it wasn't flagged (!) It was prevented for most of a year from being corrected. AngusWoof, can you just leave it alone and take down this post? I'm sorry I gave you, AngusWoof, a hard time for giving me a hard time, but hopefully, you can understand why I might. Nothing is wrong now with the article now. It's been gone over with a fine tooth comb and most everything I wrote has been removed by others. So it's no longer COI. I'm just someone who survived a war, lived to tell about it in a PBS documentary, and I didn't want incorrect information about me out there. People, journalist, fans, etc. started to ask me about these things that weren't correct.

I thanked AngusWoof for attempting to fix this problem after I figured out how to write to him. I would appreciate it if we could just remove the flag and leave the article as it was without the flag now that it's finally more correct. I would appreciate that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junotcat (talk • contribs) 23:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The best plan would be for you to post your proposed edits to the talkpage of the article, particularly those that correct any inaccuracies. Or you can indicate there which version you regard as the accurate one and what is wrong with the others. Other editors can then evaluate the edits and, as appropriate, include them in the article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The article on me is currently fine I guess except I just want it back to not having a COI flag on it as it was before and it would be nice to have my short films listed. Anyone, most of my contributions were taken out of the article. Everything else was written by others. I changed my birth place and the information about my tours for the State Department and UN. I tried to update my filmography, but it was reverted. believe AngusWoof removed my short films and wrote that they are unimportant. Short films are a major category in film festivals and awards, such as the Academy Awards. I have had shorts of mine win prizes, but someone, II can live with that, despite it being annoying. The article has now been gone over by several editors who are not me and seems to fit Misplaced Pages standards according to the ways listed. (I've annoyingly had journalists and other people tell me I only did 1 film due to IMDB and this article, who don't seem to believe me when I tell them the truth! What a bizarre world we live in!) If you could stop from trying to protect the public from truth, Jonathan A Jones, and others, maybe some people could not be given misinformation. Thank you! Đoan Hoàng (please note the incorrect spelling of my name without the marks.) User:Junotcat — Preceding undated comment added 23:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The short films can certainly be put back in the filmography. I just didn't want the article to be a repeat of your bio on your official site, or anything that resembled a resume/CV because then it would be flagged with more rule issues such as WP:RESUME and WP:NOTADVERTISING. For example, the complete list of festivals that your films were in and their sponsors, and the speaking engagements at the various universities, the complete list of schools is not necessary. They can go to your website or the film's article for that. Select the most important ones including the notable awards. The filmography sections on wikipedia it is usually just the list of the films, and if they're an actor, the person's role in the film. The descriptions of the films (both short and feature) would be great for your bio section. -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

We'reI AM also trying to find as many independent secondary sources for the information. That will help a long way in not having the article tagged as COI just because it's coming from the primary biography source. -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Who is "we" in this context? Please be aware, AngusWOOF, that you may not share your Misplaced Pages account with any other person. One person, one account. See? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, meant generic "we" as in Misplaced Pages editors involved on this page. I don't have any others using my account. I was hoping there'd be more than just myself looking after the article. If not, then never mind, -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Abid Qaiyum Suleri

Abid Qaiyum Suleri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Abid Qaiyum Suleri is a well-known scientist of Pakistan. I edited the article and added comprehensive references; however, the article has been resorted to the previous version. Pls help me in clarifying this move? Cheers -Dr Musi — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrMusi (talk • contribs) 10:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

DrMusi (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)DrMusi

• I echo the same concern. I edited the article Abid Qaiyum Suleri providing complete citations and references; however, the article has been reverted to a very old version. Even the publications sections which I updated (all cited and referenced) have been reverted to old publications. While he has published tremendous amount of work during the past few years. May I request for a "sample" page to follow so that I may learn where I was wrong as a contributor. Would also appreciate if editor may talk to me and point out my shortcomings instead of summarily deletion of all my contributions. Thanks a lot

(Sabazkot) sabazkot 11:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Use of an unpublished source for criticism of an aerospace engineer's work

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

We could use some assistance at EmDrive. There is a disagreement among involved editors about whether or not an unpublished paper titled Why Shawyer’s ‘electromagnetic relativity drive’ is a fraud is acceptable for criticizing the experimental work of Roger Shawyer, and aerospace engineer. See EmDrive#Shawyer's New Scientist article for how the source is used. The source is also used in three other citations. Thank you.- MrX 18:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

For easy reference, here is the paper in question. My feeling is that while the author of the paper clearly attacks the device (the EmDrive) with some vehemence, he does not attack Shawyer personally. --Ashenai (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the actual source which I forgot to do. I'm wondering about the Costella's credentials. He seems to be a guy with a blog. His comments at NewScientist.com are interesting, to say the least- MrX 18:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Costella seems to be an electrodynamics PhD who published a few papers in journals between 1994 and 2001 and is no longer in academia. --92.4.162.106 (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Where the paper discusses Shawyer's theories rather than the man himself and is used in an article about EmDrive rather than Shawyer, there is no BLP violation. TFD (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

If the paper isn't published, we can't use it as a source, per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

More specifically, the source fails WP:RS. I can imagine instances where an unpublished paper might pass RS (say, if it was presented at a conference after a peer-reviewed selection process) -- but this is just some guy typing stuff up on his computer. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue is (technically) WP:RS, not WP:V—it's certainly verifiable that Costella posted the paper on his web site; there's no reasonable doubt or question that he wrote the paper or that its contents are anything but what appears on his web site.

As for reliability, well—New Scientist isn't a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It's a weekly popular science magazine. New Scientist has a rather...credulous...take on certain fringe science topics, because that's what's fun and interesting and will move magazines off of newsstands. They're in the business of entertainment, not scientific publishing; they need to sell ads and eyeballs. New Scientist got a lot of blowback from their EmDrive cover story, because it was, well, overly-credulous crap. Since they're an entertainment magazine and not a scientific journal, they weren't expected to follow up at all; there weren't any retractions, no editors were fired.

Nevertheless, the publishers still made specific reference to Costella's paper in their own response to criticism of their silly article, discussing Costella's paper and linking directly to it. (MrX has already linked to the publisher's comment above.) Like most pseudoscientific and pathological-science news articles, there will be a paucity of robust, peer-reviewed sources. So if we're going to try to cover this sort of thing at all, then we're down to WP:PARITY in deciding which sources we can or should be able to use. Given that Costella's rebuttal was good enough for New Scientist to refer to, it should be good enough for us. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Could you please point out where "...the publishers still made specific reference to Costella's paper"? All I see is that they re-posted some comments from their web page and some emails.- MrX 21:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

No idea where I got that from; I have struck the error. For some reason I thought that there was a direct link from the publisher's own comments. My comments about the general reliability of popular press articles on scientific topics (especially of New Scientist) still stand. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem, and I agree that the popular press should not be quite so enthusiastic about speculative technology that seems to violate the laws of physics. On the other hand, maybe I'll finally get that flying car that I was promised decades ago.- MrX 23:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI

There are some BLP-related discussions currently ongoing elsewhere, including a BLP RfC and a discussion at AN/I. A past & possibly relevant discussion from this board is also located here. Guy1890 (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Mister You

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

I removed some unsourced material. Are there any English source citations, and are those required? I couldn't read the frech citations so I left material in that had those. This article could use help. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

English sources are not required, although I always get jumpy when I see a BLP sourced largely to non-English sources. §FreeRangeFrog 00:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

jumpy? good one. I did a little copy editing, but the article still has BLP issues. I think I ended up at that article from Jimbo's talkpage. Something about the article effecting the subject's love life. for real :) --Malerooster (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup. See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_168#.22Knowing.22_someone_through_Wikipedia.--Auric talk 14:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Nancy Snyderman's Residence

Nancy Snyderman

The article here contains contradictory information about where Dr. Nancy Snyderman lives (Princeton and San Francisco) and the hospitals she is currently associated with.Dennypackard (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed some of that for you. What do you think of it now? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Manu Sharma

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

Hi- I'm just about to head out of the door, but this popped up on my watchlist. Several editors have made comments about the content of this article, which, they claim, contains unjustified negative information about a politician. Could someone please look into this? J Milburn (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Luis A. López

Luis A. López (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I noticed some unsourced statements in this article that I've been trying to remove. However an IP is saying a picture on a blog is an acceptable source for "He has won numerous writing awards for his poetry and short stories." Can someone else take a look? --NeilN 17:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Wordpress is a self-publication blog site, so it is not a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. He probably did have the "Editor's Feature Choice for Poetry" in one issue of that magazine but that's a far cry of what the article was claiming. --NeilN 17:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Izola Curry

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

I haven't been around a lot lately and am not really sure about the status of court records posted to "The Smoking Gun" website. Would someone who knows this stuff better than I do and is more current on it please review recent edits to the Izola Curry article to see if the refs given are appropriate reliable sources for info that is (arguably) derogatory, about a living person? Thanks. David in DC (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

In short, no. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. Court records should not be used as references for anything related to a living person. Ravensfire (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

At bare minimum, the inclusion of information specifically identifying her current residence is entirely out of order and has been removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to the article. David in DC (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Prince Azim

Prince Azim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alan Turing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Regarding Prince Azim (born 29 July 1982), is it right to put a living person like him into the {{WikiProject Autism}} because he has supported several philanthropic projects, including attending two autism-support events? Is this a BLP violation, or can a living person be put into the Autism project when he isn't autistic? What are the rules regarding those project tags on biographies? I noticed that Alan Turing has that autism tag on his article talk page, although his biography doesn't mention that he is considered to have been autistic. Thanks, Parabolooidal (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The Prince Azim one is questionable. I would not object to much since there is a certain sourcable "tie in" per say, ie charity work, ect. I removed the banner from the Alan Turing since that seems to imply something completely different. Unless there is clear consensus for including the banner there, it should stay out for now.--Malerooster (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Although this is all about the inclusion of the WP:AUTISM talk page template, these two articles are very different cases. Alan Turing was an autistic person whose neurotype is questioned. Prince Azim is an allistic person who is known for autism-related events. The centralized discussion at Talk:Retrospective_diagnoses_of_autism#WikiProject_Autism_banners_on_biographical_articles applies to Alan Turing, but not Prince Azim. Muffinator (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

_{And what is a neurotype(?) Inquiring minds want to know! Parabolooidal (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)}

Regarding Prince Azim, anyone whose notoriety is autism-related is within the scope of WikiProject Autism. Most BLPs in this category are researchers, activists, and leaders of organizations (Azim's work is similar to activism). A person does not have to be autistic to be relevant to the subject, just as a person within the scope of (for example) WikiProject Robotics does not have to be a robot.Muffinator (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP violation, since there is nothing shameful about supporting autism-related causes.--Auric talk 22:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

BLP violation has to do with accuracy, not whether it's shameful or not. Besides, the template doesn't distinguish between someone who attended two autism-related events, and someone who is autistic. Parabolooidal (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Auric is probably referring to WP:AVOIDVICTIM. The template doesn't need to make that distinction anyway. The article text does. Using the same example again, WikiProject Robotics is tagged for pages related to both individual robots and people in the field of technology. Muffinator (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I think most people can tell the difference between a person who is interested in Robotics, and a robot. Similarly with wikiproject LGBT you can tell from the text whether a person is LGBT, or is involved in some other manner (e.g. campaigning) However tagging Alan Turing based up one hearsay reference, and a second that I cannot read about Autism in children, when there is not enough third party references to put something in the actual article seems very strange. It seems like WP:POV opinion pushing. Martin451 00:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The lone fact that Alan Turing is a popular object of speculation (RE: possible autism) is enough to make his article of interest to project members. Again, a WikiProject banner on a talk page is not a statement, of fact or of anything, and therefore does not require a reliable source the way article text does. If people can tell the difference between an ally and someone with the identity the other is allied with, people can also tell the difference between someone who self-identifies and someone whom others suspect. Muffinator (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Turing is dead, so BLP doesn't apply, but would you be comfortable adding this banner to the talk page of a living person who was suspected of having autism?--Malerooster (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I would not. Aren't categories for readers/users also? So that they can find relevant articles? So sticking someone, a Royal Highness from Brunei, into that category is very, very questionable to me. Parabolooidal (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia we need to rely on reliable sources. If reliable sources can be found that a living person who was suspected of having autism, that can be included, with references to those sources, just as they can for non-living people (and indeed robots). Stuartyeates (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

A couple of things need clarifying:

• (1) A WikiProject banner on a talk page is not in-article information. This conversation about reliable sources is largely irrelevant. Different types of pages have different guidelines.
• (2) The categories created by WikiProject banners are "(WP name) articles" and "X-class/X-importance (WP name) articles" and appear only on the talk page. They are not the same as those generally used for navigation. The WP:AUTISM template doesn't make an article appear in Category:Autism. The official WikiProject guide makes it explicitly clear that WikiProject banners are not, nor are intended to be, a duplicate of the category system. A category is in-article information (since it appears on the article page) and does need a reliable source. Muffinator (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding Prince Azim, he attended two autism-related events, according to his biography - one in 2011 and another in 2013 when, in the words of the article, "he graced the opening of the 2nd ASEAN Autism Network (AAN)" in Brunei. No where does it say that he "is known for autism-related events". He also attended events related to the blind, ("the guest of honour at the "Seeing is Believing" fundraiser to raise awareness on caring for the blind, held in Brunei" in 2009. And "he designed unisex weekend bags for MCM", contributed to the Make-A-Wish Foundation in the UK, and attended a seminar at International Women's Day in Brunei in 2012 "The seminar aimed to raise awareness on domestic violence, child abuse and other issues affecting women in the nation." And in 2013 he attended Brunei's International Women's Day celebration again, "with a seminar focusing on empowering women." So he was know for his philanthropy, not "is known for autism-related events". Parabolooidal (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

  Your conclusion doesn't match the premises. This a list of reasons he should be included in WikiProject Feminism (and WikiProject Blind if it existed), not a list of reasons he shouldn't be included in WP:AUTISM. Are you arguing that the opening of the 2nd ASEAN Autism Network (AAN) is not an autism-related event? Muffinator (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and he's a film producer, according to his article, so lets add a category for that. Is there a Category:Film producers from Brunei? If not, lets make one. The more the merrier. And lets get a reference to support that he falls into the category of "anyone whose notoriety is autism-related"? Considering he has done nothing for autism outside of Brunei, that he is a Royal Highness in line to inherit the throne of Brunei, that he produces films and hobnobs with Hollywood types, is his notoriety really autism-related? And I think WikiProject Feminism has enough sense not to include him. Parabolooidal (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow, this is a lot of different assertions made in a small space. 1) There currently aren't enough notable film producers from Brunei to justify creating such a specific category, but I would definitely support adding Prince Azim to Category:Film producers based on the information above. 2) The point about the notoriety being autism-related, I'm not sure if it's a false attribution or what, but I'm pretty sure it's fallacious. For comparison, should we remove Barack Obama from Category:African-American lawyers because he's famous for being a United States president and not for being black? Should we delete the entire living people category because no one is famous just for being alive? Famous people do things that aren't related to how they became famous. Their notability contributes to the notability of their actions. Now, this doesn't mean for example that farts are notable for the fact that notable people have farted, but it is pretty clear that Prince Azim is known for actions other than simply being a prince. 3) So what if he has done "nothing for autism outside of Brunei"? A person doesn't have to be internationally notable to be notable, and if they did, then Prince Azim shouldn't have an article in the first place. The National Autistic Society and Autism Society of America are examples of organizations supported by thousands of people, but specific to one country. 4) Judging by the member list on WikiProject Feminism, you are not one of them, so I'm guessing you don't know their reasons for not including Prince Azim, or if they even have one, as opposed to just not knowing of his existence. Muffinator (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Lupe Fuentes

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

I just filed an AfD procedurally for someone who claims to be the subject, the article has some clear BLP issues, and more eyes would be appreciated. Thanks. --j⚛e decker 04:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

indu Rubasingham

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

Relating to the recent decision by the Tricycle theatre to not accept a festival being supported by the Israeli embassy, someone has written that Indu is embroiled in an 'anti-semitic' row.

This is libellous, the source article does not use this language and there is no hint anywhere that the justification for her action was anti-semitic. It is not anti-semitic to take a political stance against any nation, no matter what religion/race the majority of the people who live there adhere to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.125.56.141 (talk) 09:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Patrick Joseph McGrath

Patrick Joseph McGrath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The "controversy" section of this article appears to be entirely unsourced, and represents a substantive (and seemingly personal) criticism of the Bishop's religious practise. I am not a frequent editor, and this section seems to have survived and been expanded upon for a while, so I defer to the experts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.58.126 (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed it as unsourced, but I am certainly no expert. --Malerooster (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Navi Pillay

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

An anonymous IP, apparently associated with the US congress edited the article on Navi Pillay inserting a reference to Edward Snowden being a traitor . A little bit of background here. Since then multiple IPs have been adding that - she has been criticised for defending ('traitor'/'whistelblower'/'defector'- changing choice of words each time) Snowden. Since, I did not see any criticism regarding her statement anywhere, I chose to revert to an earlier revision which merely mentions her statement. Could someone review the edit history? There were other attempts at vandalising the page earlier , . Multiple eyes on the page wouldn't hurt. Thanks!  NQ  talk 18:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Joe Decker:  NQ  talk 18:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm? (I'll take a look, but I'm curious why I'm pinged here in particular, I don't recall the article.) --j⚛e decker 17:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I merely pinged an admin, who I thought was online at the time. Nothing specific to do with you. I received a couple of emails questioning my edits at that page. Just wanted someone to take a look. Sorry, if it wasn't good etiquette. Appreciate you taking a look. Regards,  NQ  talk 17:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Cool, no worries! It was fine etiquette, I was just worried I was forgetting something, it's been that sort of week! Cheers, --j⚛e decker 21:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Anne Warner (rower)

Anne Warner (rower) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A couple of years ago, User:Charleswesley70 (an SPA) added a statement to this article which is not footnoted and which I have not been able to verify from other sources. I removed this unsourced claim. A single-edit anon restored this claim. User:Banker212, a single-purpose account, edited this claim. I tagged the claim with "citation needed". Banker212 removed the tag with the edit comment "Macrakis makes unwanted changes. Google contacted. This sentence needs no citation since it is ME." I restored it with the edit comment "claims need evidence even if you know them from personal knowledge; see WP:OR and WP:BLP". Banker212 removed it again. To be clear, I do know Anne, but I haven't been in touch with her for years, and have no idea whether the claim is true.

Please look in on this situation. Thanks. --Macrakis (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no mention of Daniel Paul anywhere else except in WP mirrors. According to various press releases and her own LinkedIn profile, she is currently employed in NYC as General Counsel of a firm. For the time being, I'm going to restore the tag. I recommend removing the claim until someone can provide a source.  NQ  talk 20:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done Unsourced stuff removed, Banker212 blocked for 24 hours after twice re-adding this material. --Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Nick_Stone_(author)#Nationality vs. Descent (Determining descent and nationality of Nick Stone)

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

In Talk:Nick_Stone_(author)#Nationality vs. Descent there is a dispute regarding the descent and nationality of Nick Stone WhisperToMe (talk) 07:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

No, there isn't a dispute about his descent. He has self-identified as being of Haitian and Scots descent. What the dispute concerns is whether or not we can categorise him as both "English people of Haitian descent" and "English people of Scottish descent". We don't know his legal nationality or citizenship status and, especially at present when some Scottish people are particularly sensitive about identity, I'm concerned that we might incorrectly tag a living person.

More generally, I've always thought that these "descent" categories are usually pointless and almost always involve guesswork. This is an issue that has been raised by others at VPP in the past but I'm off to bed for a bit and so any links would have to wait. As an extreme example, place of birth has no certain relationship to nationality or citizenship: there are people born in international waters etc and, at a personal level, one of my relatives was born in Bangalore, India, but there is no way she would call herself an Indian national or citizen. She just happened to be over there because her father was working there at the time. - Sitush (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

In the US one can be of more than one descent, so if a father is Dutch and a mother is Mexican, the child is of both Dutch and Mexican descent and gets two descent categories. I do not know the practical "limit" of these categories are as far as "Descent" goes. This is distinct from place of birth: An American child born to two White American parents but who was birthed in a hospital in Beijing is not of Chinese descent. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I understand that. I don't have a problem per se with showing two descent categories. I question the "English people of" bit in those categories. Far better that we have/use Category:People of Haitian descent and Category:People of Scots descent where and only where the descent relates to the immediate prior generation and, in the case of BLPs, it is self-identified. - Sitush (talk) 03:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. My rationale is going to be short and precise. In a conducted interview he has said that he is half-Scottish (father) and half-Haitian (mother). However, Stone was born in England making him an English citizen and national. On the talk page I tried to eexplain the differences between nationality and descent (family origins according to Oxford) the best that I could. So in short, he is an English person of Haitian descent and an English person of Scottish descent and this is how I categorized him and I provided an overwhelming amount of resources and examples to help resolve this. I had also reached out to others to gain their insight on the subject. No matter what my attempt is, Sitush finds a way to turn it down in favor of his sole viewpoint. Savvyjack23 (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Sitush, Stone wasn't just born in England and spent a few days; he's a British citizen and spends his days in England. So I don't know what point you are trying to make with that "extreme example." It doesn't apply to Stone's case at all. It also seems to me that you do not know the citizenship laws of England; being born there automatically grants you citizenship just as the United States. I've mentioned this before, its called jus soli. In France, one being born in France does not make you French, you have to have a least one French parent or wait until you are 18 years of age. (Jus sanguinis) Everywhere is different. Furthermore, your stance changes every two seconds; at first it was about descent and now its about nationality? Come off it. You're wasting everybody's time and I honestly think that you are enjoying this. Savvyjack23 (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Citizenship has nothing to do with ethnicity or nationality - it is merely a legal device and it is not a consistent one. This, again, is something that has been raised generally regarding use of these categories. I really need to find the VPP discussion because, honestly, the whole concept should be abandoned as unworkable: people twist the definition to suit their pov. - Sitush (talk) 03:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It should be borne in mind that there is no such thing as 'English nationality' or 'English citizenship', legally speaking. The Legal status is British nationality, and British citizenship (not the same thing). If and when Scotland chooses independence, the situation will clearly change, but for now, Stone is legally British, not 'English', and accordingly his citizenship (which is a legal status) isn't in of itself an adequate reason to label him 'English'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I mentioned that somewhere in the past, in relation to Scotland. Out of interest, what happens for people who have dual citizenship and/or nationality? My bet is those are treated inconsistently on WP also, and probably that the laws surrounding them are not consistent around the world anyway. - Sitush (talk) 05:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Raven Edgly

I revised the Raven Edgly page today for grammar, layout and tone; however, I discovered during the editing process that none of the content can be verified, including the claims of the subject appearing in major motion pictures. Furthermore, the sole External link was to the subject's Myspace page, which is not appropriate anyway, and has been deleted. It appears that the subject, or someone close to her has published it for promotional purposes, even though the subject is not notable or suitable for a Misplaced Pages page. Even if any of the claims could be verified, the "uncredited" content was not suitable, as the information can never be verified. I have placed a BLP noticeboard template on the Talk page. I will also remove her name from the Predestination (film) page.--Soulparadox (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I almost flat out deleted it as a hoax but just in case I'm wrong, it's now at AFD. After a cursory Google search I don't believe the subject even exists. §FreeRangeFrog 18:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The image "Raven Edgly in Titus Andronicus" on the page is that of English actress Flora Spencer-Longhurst. That, along with the mention of "Anna Rexic" (Anorexic) confirms this as a hoax. The edits and uploads of the article creator may need further scrutiny.  NQ  talk 19:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Rena Owen

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

Rena Owen is a reasonably well established New Zealand actress. However I appear to be completely failing to get through to her (or perhaps her representative) that wikipedia is not a social media forum or autobiography hoster. Fresh eyes / fresh approaches welcome. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems evident that the same person or PR firm (pollywood) is managing both her personal website and the Misplaced Pages page. The website, RenaOwen.com is "Copyrighted by Polywood. TM, Los Angeles, USA" . A clear case of COI.  NQ  talk 22:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Your persistence and diligence with the situation should be commended Stuartyeates. I have placed it on my Watchlist as of today, in the event that I may be able to assist. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Alex Hirsch

Alex Hirsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) called for redditors to vandalize his Misplaced Pages page last year . People are rereading the thread with the start of season 2 of Gravity Falls and acting on it (see the contributions of Hunt8r (talk · contribs) for example).--Auric talk 12:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have blocked a whole herd of SPA vandalism-only accounts and fully protected the page for 48 hours. --Randykitty (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Pat Robertson controversies

Pat Robertson controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

His main article seems to be ok, but this subarticle is crawling with non-notable information that is lacking numerous citations.  Noahcs  (Talk) 08:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:RSN discussion of publication used in BLP

Please see WP:RSN/"Transadvocate use in BLP, etc." and engage in discussion at WP:RSN where full details are mentioned. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Forum shopping again? RSN can handle it and are doing. The problem is just that you don't like what they're saying. - Sitush (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution