Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:58, 7 August 2015

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

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

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

Additional notes:

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

• 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

Roosh V

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.

There has been a disagreement regarding a BLP and a self published sources on the Roosh V article. I've removed the content in this diff ]. There has been some discussion on the talk page, but since this is a relatively obscure BLP, I am bringing it here for wider input. Pinging @EvergreenFir:, @PeterTheFourth:, and @Cla68: since they were involved on the talk page.

To sum up the argument, The Anti-defamation league made a claim about Roosh V on their own blog. I removed the statement because it is only sourced to the ADL's blog, and per BLPSPS we should not use self published sources on BLP's. However, it has been restored on the basis that the ADL is a highly notable organization and is reliable for it's own opinion. My apologies in advance if I didn't sum up the arguments well. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Update pinging @Futrell: as well so they know of this discussion. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Kyohyi Thanks for posting this here. To sum up my comment, BLPSPS would apply if we said "Roosh is antisemitic" and used the ADL as a source. But the sentence in question says In 2015 the Anti-Defamation League accused Roosh of anti-Semitism. We're attributing the statement to the ADL and using their blog as the source with is permissible as WP:ABOUTSELF. And I agree with the assertion that ADL's opinion is notable. Just as we note which groups the SPLC calls "hate groups" (and attribute that assertion directly to the SPLC), it would make sense to do so here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Where is the reliable secondary source that indicates the ADL's anti-semitic accusation of Roosh is notable enough for inclusion in a BLP? I dont subscribe to the idea that 'because the ADL said it, it can go in'. The ADL are a notable organisation - yes. That does not mean everything they say should go into an article. Using the ADL's blog as a self-pub source for an article on the ADL would be perfectly fine. Using their blog as a source for their opinion that someone is an anti-semite is not. Especially since they have been found to be (legally) wrong about it in the past. Even should reliable sources be found to indicate their accusation of Roosh is a notable event, the place to put it would be in the body, not in the lead.Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to note, it was originally in the body ]. After I removed it the first time, it was placed in the lead. ]--Kyohyi (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

After refreshing my memory of WP:BLPSELFPUB I am pretty sure point 2 (third parties) is applicable here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Kyohyi, you've removed it enough... it's getting to the point of edit warring. It's not a blatant BLP violation so it doesn't fall under WP:3RRNO. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I consider it an obvious violation of selfpub as per above. Absent secondary sources I would/will remove it on sight. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

If other established editors disagree, you'd be well advised to engage in discussion rather than edit-warring. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Are there secondary reliable sources which note the ADL's opinion on this matter? If not, I tend to agree with Only in death that it would be undue weight to include their opinion based only upon their self-published source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't find much other that Roosh's responses to them and stuff on Reddit. Though I wonder if we need secondary coverage or if their statement is notable by itself. To parallel SPLC again, we don't require secondary coverage when discussing their Hate Watch listings. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Howdy. My own opinion is that the ADL is a reliable source for their own opinion, their opinion about whether an individual is antisemitic is highly notable, and that if that person is already notable enough for an article it's to be encouraged to include this notable opinion in that article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that. The SPLC parallel is a good one, in my view. I've also read into the details a bit, and I don't think there's any unfairness here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Opinions on inclusion appear so far to be evenly split, although it appears that the regulars here, heretofore uninvolved with that article are leaning against inclusion. Until consensus is reached, I'm going to remove that text from the article. Please do not edit war to re-add it until we have consensus to do so. Cla68 (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Then I am sure you will be able to find reliable secondary sources that demonstrate its notability. I have also yet to see a reason why this passes point 2 of selfpub. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

When WP:BLPSELFPUB says "Such material may be used as a source only if ...", there is a distinction between using it as a source for its own truth, versus using it merely as a source for the fact that someone said something. It only makes sense for first type of use to be restricted by this policy, and the policy wording should make that clear.

Likewise, when WP:BLPSPS says "Never use self-published sources as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject", it means as sources of fact. There's no problem with using self-published sources as sources for the opinion of the publisher. Assuming there's no reasonable doubt as to the self-publisher's identity, it's ridiculous to say that such an opinion cannot be cited directly, but magically becomes citable once it's been indirectly reported by a news organization. – Smyth\ 01:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The question here is relevance. There are lots of third-party opinions of various living people, and obviously we don't publish all of them. Is the opinion itself inherently notable enough to be included in a person's biography without having been first commented upon by an independent reliable source? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

That's something you'd have to decide on a case-by-case basis. – Smyth\ 01:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the answer is a clear "yes" in this particular case. ADL is a well-known, high profile group, and their opinions about different groups and individuals is included in lots of different articles - both on wikipedia and in reliable sources more generally. Here on wikipedia, articles like Alex Linder and Jeff Rense and Glenn Spencer all put the ADL's opinion of the individual in the lede. So does New Black Panther Party. This is not an unusual practice and I see no problem with it as long as it's attributed to ADL. Clearly their opinion is judged notable across a wide swath of wiki articles (the one's I listed are just a random sample). Fyddlestix (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the answer is a clear No in this, and apparently we have a multitude of other pages where BLP is being violated. While the ADL has notability, not everything it says or does is notable in and of itself. What's more, BLP's require a higher level of notability, this can be gleaned from WP: BLPGOSSIP, for inclusion of material. BLP is pretty clear and consistent that we need secondary sources when we're talking about claims on BLP's, the only exception to this shown on BLP policy is with regards to news organizations, and even then it has requirements. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Per elaboration on the meaning of WP:BLPSPS (cannot be used as source for statements of fact, but can be used for opinion), and my belief that the answer to the question of "Is the opinion itself inherently notable enough to be included in a person's biography without having been first commented upon by an independent reliable source?" is yes with consensus seeming to support that, I'm going to place the summary of the ADL's opinion back in the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Asked to self-revert, have done so. I'm not sure what more can be discussed, but I was probably being premature. I still believe that the two points established in my above comment are fairly reasonable. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

We do not label people anti-semites even in someone else's voice unless there are reliable secondary sources demonstrating that the accusation/label is notable. ADL merely being a notable organisation does not make every pronoucement they make inherantly notable, especially since even a cursory google search shows they have been sued successfully because of it. 'The ADL said it so it must be notable' is not a valid rationale for labelling someone a racist in the lead and having them show up as 'anti-semite' when anyone googles them. This smells to high heaven of turning a BLP into a hit-job. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If by "notable" you mean "important for the person's biography", then it is. Reliable secondary sources only ever discuss Valizedeth to criticize his claims about women, foreigners and other groups. You're acting like there's tons of RS about him and editors are doing him a grave injustice by adding two sentences describing his remarks about Jews. In reality, there's only few RS that bother mentioning him at all and only because they take exception to his comments. His sole claim to notability is that he generates controversy by offending people. Did he praise the views of Kevin B. MacDonald and quote from MacDonald's book The Culture of Critique? Yes, he did. And it's certainly not the first time that he's lamented the "damaging effects of Jewish intellectualism", an opinion met with glee by Neo-Nazi websites like The Daily Stormer. There's no BLP violation here if we write that the ADL took notice and commented. --SonicY (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Hoping an uninvolved admin will be kind enough to close those. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I've posted at ANI requesting an uninvolved admin review and close this. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kyohyi: Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: The close request has since been moved to WP:ANRFC. Erpert 01:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Spiegel

Dear Wikimedia Personnel,

I know you folks strive for accuracy and unbiased information in Misplaced Pages. However, some of your volunteer editors are insisting on promoting their factually incorrect information on my Misplaced Pages page and on pages relating to a song which I co-wrote and which was briefly nominated for an Academy Award.

I have supplied numerous references which contain the facts but they insist on repeatedly inserting their own bias which is unsubstantiated. Their incorrect statement casts aspersions on one of the most respected individuals to ever work in film music, my collaborator, Bruce Broughton. Some of your volunteers have continually reinstated the statement....

 the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences found that Broughton, a former governor and current executive committee member of the music branch of the Academy, had improperly contacted other branch members for support.

This is completely false. I have provided documentation that shows them the facts but they insist on perpetuating their unsupported bias. Broughton never asked anyone for their vote or their support. This is a critical distinction. He was never accused of doing anything illegal because he never did anything illegal. That's just fact.

Here is the transcript and video from the nationally broadcast CBS This Morning. If you scroll down on the transcript you can see Bruce Broughton's entire e-mail to his friends. It concludes with "This is merely a request 'For Your Consideration'."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/academy-award-rescinds-nomination-for-songwriter-bruce-broughton/

These words make a difference. Broughton merely asks that people find the song and consider it. Bruce was more familiar with every Academy rule than most folks. He is also one of the most ethical people in the entertainment industry and has done more for aspiring composers than practically anyone else.

Here is the Academy's stated reason for their action..

“No matter how well-intentioned the communication, using one’s position as a former governor and current executive committee member to personally promote one’s own Oscar submission creates the appearance of an unfair advantage,” said Cheryl Boone Isaacs, president of the Academy.

Here is a link to the coverage by National Public Radio (NPR) in an interview with Scott Feinberg of The Hollywood Reporter. in it Feinberg addresses the issue of whether any rules were broken.

http://www.npr.org/2014/02/01/269925008/a-major-oscar-dust-up-over-a-song-from-a-minor-movie

Here is also a link to a piece written by Scott Feinberg in The Hollywood Reporter. It addresses the entire matter in detail.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/was-academys-disqualification-song-contender-675582

And finally here is a piece from Entertainment Weekly which lays out what was done by The Academy.

http://www.ew.com/article/2014/01/29/oscars-kill-original-song-nomination-for-alone-yet-not-alone-breaking

I don't want to inundate you with material but simply to establish the facts. The erroneous statement which your volunteer editors repeatedly attach to my Misplaced Pages page and to the pages about the song and movie "Alone Yet Not Alone" is contrary to the facts. I would appreciate the simple and accurate rephrasing of the statement to read...

 the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences said that Broughton, a former governor and current executive committee member of the music branch of the Academy, had contacted other branch members with a request "For Your Consideration." The Board of Governors said  that that "creates the appearance of an unfair advantage".     Not everyone agreed with the Academy's actions.   

I appreciate your efforts to ensure unbiased material in the "people's encyclopedia". Words matter.

Respectfully, Dennis Spiegel Lyricist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C05F:72D0:C42B:CDEC:D9C1:8E16 (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Er, I don't see the problem here. The Academy says that requests of the type that Broughton made "to personally promote own Oscar submission create the appearance of an unfair advantage" and were therefore improper. The current wording says no more than this; it does not say that rules were broken, or that he did anything illegal. The wording you supplied dilutes the facts concerning the Academy's statement to the point of being non-neutral (bordering on misrepresentation). General Ization 22:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

By the way, if you are claiming that a composer sending an email under the heading "For Your Consideration" that points out that the composer's song has been nominated for an Academy Award is not a request for the readers' support, you are being disingenuous. Of course it is, however politely it may have been put. When he said "consideration," he wasn't looking for compliments or invitations to dinner parties, I'm sure. General Ization 22:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Broughton’s request “For Your Consideration” is the accepted language used by every contender. Many artists who serve as volunteers for their branch in the Academy, as well as every studio, put forth their work “For Consideration”. That is the accepted language and it means please consider this work. It does not mean “vote for this work” or “support this work”. If the responder finds this distinction hard to reconcile then his issue is with the Academy.

The responder is correct on one point. Mr. Broughton is not asking for a dinner invitation or compliments.

Here’s a detailed posting which may help with an appraisal of this matter. While I do not offer it as a reference for inclusion on Misplaced Pages, it is perhaps the most in depth look at the issue to date. I think it is well worth reading for people who wish to understand all sides.

http://badalanews.blogspot.com/2015/02/taking-bruce-broughton-side-in-yet-not.html

Respectfully, Dennis Spiegel Lyricist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C05F:72D0:1587:7F3A:BF69:C848 (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Though I'm hoping I'm not the only one here with an opinion about this: The only issue before us is whether the current language in the article accurately and neutrally describes the Academy's response to Mr. Broughton's email. Having read everything you've posted here, I still contend that it does, and that it does so more than the alternate language you proposed. This has nothing to do with whether Mr. Broughton's email was improper, or whether the Academy's response to the email was appropriate or fair, and these are not matters for us to judge in drafting a Misplaced Pages article. We are to remain neutral and accurately reflect our sources. I maintain that we have done so. General Ization 04:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

To say that Mr. Broughton was asking for "support" is neither factual nor neutral.

To say that Mr. Broughton was asking "For Your Consideration" is accurate.

Here is the entire e-mail Mr. Broughton shared with his friends...

Dear XXXXX,

I'm dropping you a line to boldly direct your attention to entry #57, Alone Yet Not Alone, on the Academy's Original Song Reminder List and DVD compilation for Best Original Song. Alone Yet Not Alone was composed by Dennis Spiegel and myself for the film, and was used as a dramatic centerpiece of the story. The score for the film was composed by Bill Ross, The clip includes the final scene in the film and a performance of the song as used in the beginning of the End Credits.

I'm sending this note only because it is extremely unlikely that this small, independent, faith-based film will be seen by any Music Branch member, it's the only way I can think of to have anyone be aware of the song.

This is merely a request "For Your Consideration," a hope that the song will get noticed and be remembered among the many worthy songs from more highly visible films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C05F:72D0:6CBC:70D:A28:176F (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Stephanie Seneff

Not sure about some of the recent edits to this page. Is Age of Autism a reliable source in this context? What about Agriculturesociety.com? Is it fair to say that open access journals are not part of the mainstream academic press? Everymorning talk 19:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

And I've removed them. Gross BLP violations and distortion if not outright falsification of at least one source. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Shouldn't this be up at AfD? Randykitty, what do you think? It seems to me that this person is only notable for writing something that was widely blasted. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

As the article creator, I am doubtless biased on this matter, but I suspect that an h-index of 48 on Google Scholar probably indicates notability per WP:PROF. I know this varies from field to field so I'm not sure whether it's good enough here. There is also some popular media coverage of her research here. Everymorning talk 02:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, the Atlantic source isn't about glyphosate, and that's not the only thing she's known for researching. Everymorning talk 10:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Cecil lion

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

At this time, this article mentions the name of the hunter, the name of his practice (name of his business), his state, and his profession. The hunter has admitted to the killing, so of course his name is properly cited. But his personal business?

All this, for a person who has been convicted of no crime, and who is merely accused on the say-so of some third world NGO which has already benefited to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and of some government officials of the same country.

Zimbabwe, really, look up its Misplaced Pages page: its president has been the same since 1980, and, according to the Misplaced Pages lede, Zimbabwe has a "problematic human rights record and substantial economic decline."

Is this how Misplaced Pages treats BLP of an accused person convicted of no crime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierItzm (talk • contribs) 08:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

A vast range of sources name his business. This is the basis for our doing so as well. As for "convicted of no crime", you might want to read a bit more closely. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The article is about Cecil the lion, not about bears. Is there no presumption of innocence in Misplaced Pages any more with regard to BLP of persons merely accused, but not convicted? Someone with some sense has deleted the name of the hunter's business, but a picture of it remains, disturbingly specifying the exact type of business. Profession and state remains, even though the accusations are irrelevant to such identifying items. XavierItzm (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no justification for including this living person's business address, irrespective of whether or not other sources have included it. Minor4th 01:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The justification is precisely that many sources have included it... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not a justification for inclusion. It's random trivia of a non-encyclopedic nature. The exact street addresses associated with famous people throughout their lives are often published in numerous RS's. But it's very rare to find any articles that include such information. Choor monster (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The question posed in this section related to the name of his practice, not the street address. I agree with not including the address, but the name of the practice merits inclusion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, someone above got this off-track. Meanwhile, my point remains. That many RS mention a point of trivia is not grounds by itself for inclusion. If there were some obvious connection between his business and the killing (say he ran a tourist agency, rifle range, taxidermy shop) I could see the relevance. As is, it remains pointless trivia. Name, occupation, vaguely pinpointed residence location, seem the usual encyclopedic bits of information. More than that, I don't see how it adds to the article. Choor monster (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Given that his business has been named, the type of business it is, and that he is losing business and that there is strong social criticism that is part of driving his clients away - all which are readily cited without to do almost any work in looking for reputable sources - means it's reasonable to include. Address of the business, absolutely not, just like a home address. --MASEM (t) 23:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• No where do I see his business address given or the name of the business mentioned. Just the state, and Minnesota is quite large. This has been discussed heavily on Talk:Cecil (lion). Palmer's occupation was removed from the lead and relegated to the article itself. I don't see a problem with the article's current state. I would object to any inclusion of an address or name of business though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The name of the business has since been removed even though user Nomoskedasticity wrote above on 16:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC) that he was OK with including it. Nonetheless, a picture of said business remains, indicating the type of business and the state. Sad. XavierItzm (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It's called a compromise position... StAnselm (talk) 09:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The picture of said business remains as protestors made it into a shrine to the lion. Whether you think that's also "sad" is another question? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The image does not display the name of the business, its address, or any other sensitive information. All the the signs shown are non threatening and devoid of any sensitive information. But it does display the extend of the response. Seems like an appropriate photo to me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 11:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion the name, location etc of the business is undue weight for an article about a lion. However an image of the shrine to the lion does appear to reasonable as it is directly related to the topic at hand and as others have mentioned it does not reveal sensitive information and is not particularly nasty relative to what is being said elsewhere. Chillum 15:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

AVDUCK defaming an entire public services union

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.

WP:AVDUCK

Please note that a photoshopped image in this essay which attacks a group of people referred to as "advocacy ducks" includes a flock of waterfowl carrying signs that clearly show the logo of the Public and Commercial Services Union. It looks to me like this image is (whether intentionally or not) associating this union with untoward activity on Misplaced Pages.

I started a discussion on the talkpage: Misplaced Pages talk:Advocacy ducks#Public and Commercial Services Union. It seems the main author of the essay is none too pleased with the removal of the image and doesn't see the problem, claiming "No defamation there - images are CC licensed which clears them." I don't think that this is a correct reading of how CC licensing works in terms of issues like this on Misplaced Pages.

Thoughts?

jps (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I have suggested on talk page that the image be photoshopped. It would seem a simple matter to replace the small and barely visible logo with a solid blue oval. Atsme and jps, would this be an acceptable compromise to resolve this dispute?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it just as easy to get rid of the logo entirely? Just white out the whole thing? jps (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

sure, that works too.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This essay is already the subject of a long and ongoing discussion at ANI. It does seem inappropriate for one of the images in an essay of this type to target a specific group like that. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Fyddlestix. The design of the signs and slogan also appear to be unique to the union, so it should be whited-out entirely if used. - Location (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

While I have doubts that a union falls under BLP, as it isnt a person. I have uploaded a edited image while this discussion is ongoing. AlbinoFerret 17:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it matters - an essay should not target a specific group like that, even if it's not a blp violation. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I dont think its targeting the union. A plain reading of the essay and the caption of the image shows it isnt, the logo isnt recognisable at the size in the essay. Also it appears I was correct WP:BLPGROUP. AlbinoFerret 17:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me - it's a CC 2.0 share alike image which means we can modify the image, sell it, use parts of the image in a composite, etc. as long as we credit the source which we did. Before you go casting aspersions and making unwarranted allegations, please familiarize yourself with CC licensing. In the interim, I have modified the image even further to appease those who don't understand CC licensing. Thank you. Atsme 17:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• This isn't a BLP issues and you folks need to quit dragging this petty dispute to multiple forums. It's becoming disruptive.- MrX 17:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• I agree, MrX. It is far more than disruptive - it's nonsensical retaliation. I apologize for my involuntary part as the target of their childish games. Wishing you a good day. Atsme 19:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Until such time as Misplaced Pages has a "concerns over possible defamation noticeboard", this noticeboard is the closest thing we have to a venue for discussing such matters. jps (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, or more specifically a wikimedia image dispute. This should have been discussed and resolved on the talk page.Martinlc (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Everything discussed on this board is a content dispute. jps (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Nathan Gill- violations need whitewashing

An anonymous editor has just placed unfounded and uncited serious personal allegations into this biography, which have no media or evidential substance. Can an admin please wipe the revisions? It's of a highly legal nature Thanks TF92 (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Abecedare is on the case--thanks, Abecedare. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Jeffrey Beall

Jeffrey Beall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This edit does not seem BLP compliant, so I am posting here to determine what other editors think. Everymorning talk 02:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is a pretty obvious policy violation that seems to depend on WP:SYNTH, especially the last sentence of the lead. In fact, the article as a whole seems to have some serious NPOV issues.- MrX 03:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• MrX, in a quick glance I can't see the problem, though that linkfarm was a bit overdone. Can you tell me what specifically is bothering you? Drmies (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It's been cleaned up a bit since then - this is the version that had more obvious problems. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, a couple of editors already took care of it.- MrX 02:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Richard Schweiker

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL})

Richard Schweiker has been edited to state that he died within the past few days, however, this has not been reported. - Location (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I also could find no source reporting this, so I've reverted this per WP:BLP; if and when a reliable source reports it, it can be easily restored. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Philly.com is now reporting. - Location (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for following up on this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Stephanie Styles and Jacob Kemp

• Stephanie Styles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jacob Kemp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Related bios, of young Broadway actors, being edited by WP:SPA users. I've tried to de-fluff both of these, but suspect they'll require some vigilance, so any assistance will be appreciated. A lot more unsourced content can be cut from both. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:2CE7:9FE7:32F1:AC2A (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Will copy edit these for language tomorrow. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. 2601:188:0:ABE6:2CE7:9FE7:32F1:AC2A (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• I nominated Jacob Kemp for deletion. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• This might be related to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Spaghetti07205 and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Spaghetti07205. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Arafat Nagi

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

An editor, BuffaloBob, has created a new article about this individual who was arrested by federal authorities last week in Lackawanna, New York on suspicion of "attempting to provide material support and resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization." As I stated in my PROD of the article, "First, a presumption of innocence exists; the subject has been charged but not convicted. Second, WP:BLP1E applies. The subject is not notable for any reason other than the charges brought against him. We should not create an article for everyone the authorities arrest on suspicion of terrorism (or any other charge)." Please advise if you disagree, or if there is some other guidance that contradicts either of these points when it comes to suspected terrorists who have been charged but not convicted. General Ization 23:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The editor also recited the events and assertions set forth in the federal complaint as if they were proven fact, that is without clearly attributing the statements to the complaint. I have edited the article to at least make clear that the only source for the assertions at this time is the complaint. General Ization 00:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• User:General Ization, thank you. I've deleted the article: you are correct. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

David B. Allison

This article was a puff piece; right now, it's just another poor article. But a quick look through the history reveals that a now-blocked editor did a bit of cleanup, including in this edit--note the deceptive edit summary. In short, what we need is a rewrite of the article which takes into account the two highly reliable references removed in that edit (this and this--it's really quite juicy). Thank you in advance. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I fear the articles being recommended here are more in the nature of attack pieces than in the nature of neutral sources - where an article saves the part about 90+% of his research being government funded, using it to assert or imply that the under 10% which is provided by industry groups as evidence of any sort of miscreancy is undue, IMO. ("As for Allison, although he has received tens of millions of dollars in research grants from the government, he has also received at least $2.5 million in research grants from private industry, ABC News has learned.") Collect (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I have added some stuff to the article from the sources provided by Drmies. Everymorning talk 15:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

And now a user with no other edits has removed my additions, calling them "slander" in one of his edit summaries. Drmies, would you be willing to take a look at the edits in question? Everymorning talk 18:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, gladly, User:Everymorning. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity beat me to it (thanks). Collect, I'm sorry, but they are from reliable sources so, for instance, the NYT's claim that "Allison was paid to write the document on behalf of the New York State Restaurant Association" has to be taken quite seriously. Either way it does not behoove OsHassar to just blank it. They may discuss on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Alexey Pajitnov

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

Just noticed this article was edited today and something seems off about it.

A lot of random strings of letters, and claiming that he died with no source, all from an anonymous IP in Serbia with +100 already? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.29.192.185 (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism pure and simple, now reverted. Thanks. General Ization 03:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Arrest of Nicole Naugler

Arrest of Nicole Naugler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could use some help figuring out what to do with this article, and keeping an eye on it. I've already done some cleanup (Before, After, Diff) since the article was in a pretty sad state when I found it (citations to facebook and infowars, wholly un-referenced allegations of sexual abuse, etc). I've basically stubbed it, but now I'm wondering if there should be an article on this at all - there is coverage that suggests notability (), however the focus of that coverage seems to be the seizure of the family's children and their child-rearing philosophy rather than Nicole Naugler's arrest specifically, and most of it smacks of WP:SENSATION. I'm really not sure what airing this family's dirty laundry is supposed to provide in terms of encyclopedic value, but I'm hesitant to bring it to AFD because there's actually been quite a lot of news coverage.

Any input/advice is appreciated, and having some people watching the article would be good. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLP1E. The fact that the subject received "quite a lot" of news coverage for that one event (seizure of the children), which is now resolved, does not make them notable in the long term. It certainly has no long-term significance. At AfD, I would support deletion. General Ization 05:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Which you can do now at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Arrest of Nicole Naugler.--ukexpat (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. Collect (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Liz RfA false statements by WJBscribe

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.

Relating to page https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Liz#Oppose

I made a vote on this RfA as I thought was permitted by the specified rules. Bureaucrat WJBscribe removed my vote with this comment:

Striking vote from sole purpose GamerGate account. It is obvious from your contributions that your agenda here relates solely to Gamergate, and you participate here (having not editing for several months) after reddit takes interest in this RfA. WJBscribe (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not true. I had been following the RfA from the beginning, I had seen no mention of it on Reddit, and my "agenda here" includes edits to Georg Simmel and Doctor Faustus. My Gamergate-related "agenda" has been confined to getting Misplaced Pages to remove slanderous misrepresentations of me. Unless WJBscribe is prepared to explain how this fits with the above description, I would like these remarks removed.

If you would prefer to keep my vote out of your RfA kangaroo court, I don't really care about that. It's the false remarks that matter. Auerbachkeller (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Your first foray into Misplaced Pages was definitely an external issue - e.g., someone objecting to content and therefore appropriate for BLPN. As you may recall, I objected to the use of WP:FRINGE to characterize the validity of your work as a source in the context of the GG talkpage discussion. However, once you become involved in something like an RFA then this is an internal issue. Call it a personal attack or lack of good faith assumption or whatever, but not a BLP issue per se, and thus not really actionable by anyone in this noticeboard. I'm not sure what you're asking in any case - a suppression of the edit summary that doesn't even mention you directly? Since a bureaucrat removed your comment and !votes in RFAs are the purview of bureaucrats, I suggest you bring it up with WJBscribe and if that doesn't work then take it to WP:ANI instead. For the record, I consider it a really bad idea for you to have even touched that RFA, because for better or worse you are irremediably tied to the GG drama and the bulk of your edits so far are related to that, although I hope with time and many more helpful edits to other areas that will change. Alternatively you could just ignore a few revisions in a page that will be all but forgotten in a few days and go improve some articles instead. It helps to have a bit of a thick hide around here if you're doing anything other than building content. §FreeRangeFrog 19:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

If he is a registered editor, he has as much right as any other editor to comment at RfA. No one should have the right to prevent members of the community from registering their opinion. GregJackP Boomer! 19:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

If you're smart enough to comment at RFA, you're smart enough to know this is the wrong forum for this discussion. This is not a BLP issue. Suggest someone close this. Townlake (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

BLP Violation by WJBScribe

I repeat my request, as the previous request was closed improperly by non-admin EvergreenFir. In keeping with BLP policy, WJBscribe's claim that I was part of a Reddit brigade in the RfA is categorically false, unsupported, and a violation of the BLP rule that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate" in non-article space. This is not an internal matter as WJBscribe made a claim about my activity *off* of Misplaced Pages, namely, joining in a Reddit brigade organized outside of Misplaced Pages. It is a BLP issue. The users above who say "Just forget about it" and "You're in the wrong place" should pay closer attention to the policies they supposedly know so well. Auerbachkeller (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Here I repeat the original report:

Relating to page https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Liz#Oppose

I made a vote on this RfA as I thought was permitted by the specified rules. Bureaucrat WJBscribe removed my vote with this comment:

Striking vote from sole purpose GamerGate account. It is obvious from your contributions that your agenda here relates solely to Gamergate, and you participate here (having not editing for several months) after reddit takes interest in this RfA. WJBscribe (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not true. I had been following the RfA from the beginning, I had seen no mention of it on Reddit, and my "agenda here" includes edits to Georg Simmel and Doctor Faustus. My Gamergate-related "agenda" has been confined to getting Misplaced Pages to remove slanderous misrepresentations of me. Unless WJBscribe is prepared to explain how this fits with the above description, I would like these remarks removed.

If you would prefer to keep my vote out of your RfA kangaroo court, I don't really care about that. It's the false remarks that matter. Auerbachkeller (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting an admin close this and warn the user. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zad68: since they message this user earlier. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Herman Jay Cohen

Herman Jay Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am removing two paragraphs by Perspicacite. They are very NPOV, making extensive use of editorializing and weasel words. The only source is one dodgy article from the defunct conservative outlet Insight on the News. The paragraphs created a "wheel war" between Perspicacite – who evidently referred to the article's subject as an "evil SOB" – and 128.220.251.100, who may also be NPOV. In the interim I will add hard biographical facts to the article only, and request that an administrator prevent hasty edits to the article. – Larry.darrell44 (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You probably mean that they were very Biased and without NPOV. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This article needs better references in general, they're pretty lousy. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Crystallizedcarbon yes, sorry, that is what I meant :) Fyddlestix Agreed, and will work on that over the next couple days. – Larry.darrell44 (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Alejandro betancourt (not yet resolved)

Below Conversation is still not resolved. Righteousskills (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I asked for new reliable sources to reference if the BLP is under an actual investigation since the article was published almost a year ago. Since I received no answer, a few days latter I removed the content I deemed non encyclopedic for the BLP due to reasons mentioned above.

In the past I have reverted several questionable contributions from righteousskills ( see summary on his talk page). One of this contributions was adding to the lead that the subject of the BLP was under a criminal investigation using that same source. The article was protected and the editor was reminded of WP:OR by an administrator (see at the end of this section)

More than a month after my edit was done righteousskills added it back without any previous discussion of the matter in the talk page. He also added an unrelated reference and a phrase already covered elsewhere in the article. I reverted it twice asking him to reach a consensus first before changing the article. He has ignored my requests and added the content again.

Even though this is not a very relevant article for the encyclopedia, I would appreciate it if someone could take the time to look into this in detail. I think it is worth a look because Derwick Associates's page has been edited by at least one paid editor (see here) on behalf of the company and various sock puppets have been uncovered. On the other hand it also had various IP's proxies blocked that were doing negative contributions very similar to those of righteousskills on both the company and the BLP (this are some accounts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) (see diff). Righteousskills after a year and a half of inactivity, requested an IP block exemption claiming he could be hacked (see here). After that he created or contributed on all the pages related to the WSJ article before it was published, and then did clearly biased contributions like (this edit) in all those articles just the moment it got published.

I can't prove if this is the case, but while one civil suit for defamation with charges of bribery against the company and the BLP has been dismissed , there is another one that is still active, so there might be economical interests at play for both sides. I try to reach consensus whenever possible, but in this case we may be dealing with a conflict of interests. so I would appreciate it if other editors that want to invest their time could take care of this one. Thank you.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Isn't THIS the pot calling the kettle black now isn't it? Please refrain from this accusatory tone if you would like me to do the same. Any administrators viewing this should take note that the now blocked editor, FergusM1970, and the vast majority of the now blocked socks, made edits in line with Crystallizedcarbon's.

I will place my same talk page comments here to reiterate my points.

• Here http://pubsys.miamiherald.com/2014/03/27/4023508/lawsuit-filed-in-miami-accuses.html : "The lawsuit, filed against Derwick Associates Corporation, Derwick Associates USA, and their owners, alleges that tens of millions of dollars were paid under the table to high-ranking Venezuelan officials in exchange for their acceptance of overpriced invoices from the companies."

• And here translated from Spanish: http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2014/08/09/actualidad/1407540747_507459.html : "Perhaps the most representative bolichicos are the young owners of the utility Derwick -Peter Trebbau Alejandro Lopez and Alejandro Betancourt who have been subject to fierce scrutiny by public opinion....The newspaper The Wall Street Journal on Friday joined a new headache for them. Federal and state prosecutors in New York are investigating the company, which became one of the leading import and construction of power plants during the government of Hugo Chavez , for possible violations of banking laws of the state and the payment of bribes for advantages to doing business, prohibited by Corrupt Practices Act Abroad..... The US investigates whether excessive profit margins may have hidden reported paying bribes to foreign officials."

• And here http://www.wsj.com/articles/venezuelan-energy-company-derwick-investigated-in-u-s-1407516278 : "The lawsuit alleges Derwick and the company's owners, among others, obtained contracts to build power stations in return for paying multimillion-dollar bribes to senior Venezuelan officials."

• And here http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324635904578640351169881218 : "A former top U.S. diplomat filed a lawsuit against three young Venezuelan businessmen whom he accuses of bribing senior Venezuelan officials in exchange for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars."

Its pretty clear that the investigation are into both the company AND its owners. And to reiterate, 11 months is not that long for investigations like this. It often takes a decade for decisions to be reached.

Another important item to recognize is that Reich's civil suit was dismissed due to jurisdiction. Righteousskills (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, It seems that you are deliberately trying to mix the two separate civil suits that do involve the BLP and the company with the preliminary investigations claims that involve only the company.

• Both those civil suits mention the company and the BLP and are included in the Controversies and legal disputes section of the article. The first dismissed and the second one is still ongoing.

• The alleged preliminary investigation claimed by the anonymous sources only mention the company, Never the BLP. As I just mentioned el Pais just cites the WSJ as its source and also mentions the company and not the BLP as the target of the possible investigation.

You were already told this almost a year ago by an administrator that labeled your claim that the BLP was under investigation as WP:OR (see at the end of this section) you were asked to find a reference to source your claim and your answer from August of last year was that you will continue looking into it. There is no new evidence to indicate that any investigation is taking place on the company let alone the BLP.

It is only this last paragraph that should be removed following WP:BLPCRIME recommendations including the last phrase you added to the paragraph trying to mix it again with the open civil suit since it is already mentioned in that section.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I of course encourage any user to review our respective contributions to both pages. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe you are confusing incidents. The content you removed roughly a month ago was not what was in question over a year ago. Righteousskills (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It was that same information sourced from the same referece. At that time the information you and the now blocked IPs inserted was that the BLP was under criminal investigation. you were told by an admin that inferring that the BLP was under investigation by authorities using the existing sources at that time was WP:OR. Your claim when referring to the WSJ material was "...Criminal investigations are into the executives of the company! Civil suites can be into a company, but criminal means that charges would be against persons..." and a few answers latter your were told "There is no current RS that states Betancourt is under criminal investigation, yet you believe there is reason to state Betancourt is under investigation? WP:OR wants to have a word with you. I haven't read of any allegations that Betancourt personally committed bribery, corruption, banking violations or any other crimes (except by you). Huon (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)". And the paragraph was reworded eliminating the explicit mention of the BLP as the target of the claimed preliminary investigation. At the end you agreed to continue looking into it.

I have restored the article to follow WP:BLPCRIME recommendations pending any new input from experienced editors or administrators.

I ask you to please refrain from adding back the controversial information until it is determined here if it conforms to the recommendations of our policy, or until you can find a reliable source to establish your claim that the BLP (not the company) is under an actual investigation by federal or state prosecutors. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing incidents and edits. What you removed in May of this year was not the same as what was done a year ago. Righteousskills (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Allegations by anonymous or unnamed persons are rarely a great idea in any BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Covered in The Wall Street Journal ? And these are not allegations from anonymous people; anonymous people reported the the US Justice Department is investigating. Theres a substantial difference there. Righteousskills (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the content meets our standards for inclusion. The reasons given by Crystallizedcarbon above are weak at best. A high-profile investigation of a company is relevant to the biography of that company's CEO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

That does not seem to be the case. What the RS reported is that Anonymous sources claim that the company was a year ago under a preliminary investigation. They also said that it may or may not become an actual investigation. Those allegations were denied by the company itself, and there have not been any news in the last year to substantiate that an actual investigation did or is taking place on the company.

According to WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS Misplaced Pages considers the enduring notability of events, a possible future investigation denied by the company is newsworthy but it is not necessarily suitable for inclusion. Still, it is included in the company page, on top of the questionable enduring notability there is the issue that the editor that pushes for its inclusion insisted adamantly that the text infers as well a criminal investigation into the BLP himself. WP:BLPCRIME should be followed pending any new and more tangible sources. I also agree with Collect. The primary source of the article is anonymous so it is not a good idea to use it in this BLP regardless of who they claim may be investigating or which reliable source reproduces their claims.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

WSJ is not anonymous. Please stop accusing anyone of "pushing". Your edits could be called the same thing; especially since I am arguing the page stay untouched and you are the one who wants it altered. Righteousskills (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Bump. Righteousskills (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to "bump" threads here - we can all see that this is apparently still unresolved.--ukexpat (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Rick Alan Ross (consultant)

Rick Ross (consultant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An opinion is included within my biography, put there by an editor who apparently wanted a negative POV expressed. Included is the following quote, "Ross' moral credentials 'seem shaky at best'" Many articles have been written about me and this point of view expresses a tiny minority. It reflects bias to include this quote and I request that it be removed from the bio. I have repeatedly requested for this quote to be removed at the Talk page. Rick Alan Ross96.235.133.43 (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I've removed it for now, in part to provoke a discussion. I can see the point that it's not obvious that we'd include some journalist's opinion on the matter -- seems a bit gratuitous. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm yes, but the problem is that you let another (positive) part of that same journalist's opinion stand. Please see the article for my proposal: let the facts stand, verified by the source. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Bill Strömberg

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

Recommend for deleting:

• Personal Advertising
• Very Limited Sources
• Little reference value in the way in which is currently organised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Global aviator (talk • contribs) 19:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Mark bell (journalist)

Mark Bell (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Clearly an autobiography written by subject as "WhoWhoOwl" which account history proves. Person is not notable in any respect and should be removed from Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.0.45 (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Not my field of expertise but it says he, Bell, is a three-time winner of the prestigious Malcolm Law Investigative Reporting Award from the Tennessee Associated Press. You best create a WP:AFD discussion if you feel there are grounds for deletion. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

BLP violation removed, one minor award is now effectively a dead link and likely not utile. Collect (talk) 12:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Ismahil Akinade

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

Is the addition of information concerning the right to be forgotten by this footballer concerning his conviction in a child sex case a BLP violation? Mo ainm~Talk 15:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

If there is a published source concerning the way he has exercised this "right to be forgotten", then there might be grounds for including it. But the issue can be construed in a different way. WP:SOURCEACCESS makes it clear that sources do not have to be readily available on-line. The fact that Google might make it difficult to get clickable access to a source does not change the fact that the source in question (say, a newspaper article) was published. A published article would still be available e.g. via archives of various sorts (perhaps Nexus), or in a print archive. So it might be possible to include coverage of the child sex conviction, even if it's not possible to include coverage of the way he has gone down the "right to be forgotten" road. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the article sources are provided for his conviction. Mo ainm~Talk 16:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't bring myself to protest the removal of this material very strongly but at the same time, the "right to be forgotten" thing does not apply to Misplaced Pages, which is a US nonprofit hosted in the United States. Nor are the search results removed from Google in the United States or anywhere else in the world other than Europe for that matter. It seems disingenuous that we must cave in to such stupid laws. On the other hand the original addition was poorly worded at best. §FreeRangeFrog 16:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It should probably be noted that this 'conviction in a child sex case' refers to events that took place when the subject was 16 years old (the victim was 14). Previous coverage of the crime in the article failed to make this clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

That affects my view as to whether it should be included. I'd lean against it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Well if there's consensus to remove then by all means. §FreeRangeFrog 17:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Kushner

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

This article does not conform to wikipedia's guidelines for BLP because it does not strike the right tone (somewhat self-aggrandizing, possibly written by the subject), and isn't verifiable (IE doesn't cite sources for some of its descriptions). A significant amount of the information presented seemingly fails to achieve adequate notability. It reads more like a résumé than it does a wikipedia article.

Ervand Abrahamian

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

Ervand Abrahamian is not a marxist. The "references" that have been cited are hardly reputable--one of them was created simply to support the claim. This is his biography: http://www.baruch.cuny.edu/wsas/academics/history/eabrahamian.htm Please remove the word "marxist" from this post--clearly someone is trying to misrepresent him.

Removed for now. There were two refs but they did not support the assertion being made. Fyddlestix (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution