Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dharmadhyaksha (talk | contribs) at 14:29, 7 September 2014 (→Praveen Togadia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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

Requesting advice on Will Hayden

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

Up until the last couple days, Will Hayden was solely notable as a cable reality TV personality on one show, Sons of Guns. Today, TMZ ran an article about an arrest (which has since been added to the article, though with slightly better sourcing), which I believe brings this article within the ambit of WP:BLPCRIME. I had redirected it today, and was reverted by the article creator (who left a note on my user talk). I'm reasonably certain that an AfD would have resulted in redirect prior to the arrest, and I don't think the arrest should change that per BLPCRIME. But since I'd rather not edit war over the redirect, and there's every chance I'm wrong, I'd appreciate some outside input from those more familiar with BLP than me. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 17:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME relates to people who have articles written about them specifically because of the crime they are suspected of. In other words, the suspected crime is why they're notable. Will Hayden was notable for being the star of Sons of Guns - a national prime time cable TV show. Him having an article is no different than all the people who were on Jersey Shore, Pawn Stars, American Pickers, etc. who have had articles written about them. They all fit WP:BLP standards. It would have been different if Hayden was just some guy off the street who got arrested, and somebody wrote an article about him - then you'd have a case about non-notability. But Hayden had already been established as a TV personality long before he got arrested, and the article had long been written before news of the arrest came out. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If anyone is "reasonably certain that an AfD would have resulted in redirect prior to the arrest," then it could go to AFD, but stars of TV shows have often been found to be notable in AFD, since they often have multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage. It is not the general practice at Misplaced Pages to eliminate an existing article just because the subject is charged with a crime, as might be the practice in the UK under their "sub judice" practice. It would be a good idea to monitor both his article and the show article for vandalism and BLP violations. Both articles could be semi-protected if problems arise. A foreseeable problem is how specifically the alleged 11 year old victim can be identified in either article. Edison (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's long been my understanding that going to AfD intending for the outcome to be a redirect is considered inappropriate. If that's changed in recent years, I'd be interested to know. But I'll be the first to admit I could be incorrect about this. In the meantime, I think this article needs more eyes: some of the details of the alleged crime as reported by TMZ and the NY Post have been added to the article, including the probable identity of the alleged victim. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 22:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It's called a 'Blank and redirect', and per WP:BLAR, it should be submitted to afd is editors cannot find consensus on whether it's safe to do so. Though I also think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of notability. It's not temporary, as long as the person meets the WP:GNG, an arrest or conviction doesn't simply make them 'non-notable' anymore. Tutelary (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You seem to misapprehend: I don't believe this individual has notability that is independent of the TV show. Notability is not inherited. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 19:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I was meaning that if this person was notable in the past, notability doesn't 'dissipate' so to speak, so if you're admitting that they were notable, you're admitting that they -are- notable. Tutelary (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Nobody knew who (or what) a Snooki was before Jersey Shore, but does that mean she's not notable? Rick Harrison was just some local pawn shop owner in Las Vegas prior to finding fame on Pawn Stars, but does that mean he's not notable? Will Hayden was just a gunsmith/gun shop owner in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, but one hit TV show later (Sons of Guns), he became famous. If he was still just a local gunsmith, the horrible crimes he's accused of doing wouldn't have made the news it has. But because he's a star of a prime time TV show, it's all over the place. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I see someone has changed four source article titles to "Hayden Arrested". This sort of lying goes beyond what Misplaced Pages should do for a living person. Goes to the other extreme of non-neutrality. I've fixed them, and hope they'll stay as they were actually written. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, August 28, 2014 (UTC)

Will Hayden victim

Will Hayden was arrested on child rape charges. Victim is still a minor. Most respectable journalism articles don't identify child rape victims or use identifying information. Identifying information is not necessary for the charge nor is necessary for the BLP. There was some initial reports that had identifying information with victim rumor. I removed what I saw. Probably should be rev deleted, too. --DHeyward (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I added this this earlier as I missed this other section. Made it subheading here. Looks like some has delrev'd versions but more could be done. No source we use should in any way identify victim and no old version should exist that does it either. The paramount BLP issue is minor victim of sex crime. --DHeyward (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It is bizarre to say that we cannot cite reliable mainstream news sources just because their stories identify the victim in some way. This is an amazing argument and should not be applied in this case. See Trial of Michael Jackson where the alleged minor victim is specifically named. See Roman Polanski sexual abuse case where the 13 year old victim is named. Harvey Milk names his 16 year old sex partner (no prosecution involved). The name of the victim is more likely to appear in all the news coverage if there is a trial. Misplaced Pages cannot "unring a bell." That said, we need not repeat the specific identification hints pointing to the victim at this point in this case. Edison (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not real bizarre when the reliable sources like AP decided to do it when it was announced that the new charge was rape. AP specifically moved to that stance and removed all identifying language. For Misplaced Pages, the standard is what value does identifying the victim have in the article? In this case, none. What harm can it cause? Lots. WP will have records long after the news sites have archived theirs. Look at the Discovery Channel website. Purged. But we still have his article and will continue to. The least we can do is not increase the harm already inflicted. AP seems to agree. The article does not suffer by leaving it out and it doesn't gain by adding it in so do the least harm. --DHeyward (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Relevant policy is WP:AVOIDVICTIM as the victim is not notable outside the crime and is not the subject of any articles. The event can be covered without identifying the victim and indeed, most crimes of this nature do not name the victim especially if the are minors. There is no information relevant to the topics covered in WP to name the victim and prolonging victimization through identification is simply wrong. --DHeyward (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Alex Jones, "moon landing hoax" input needed

Alex Jones (radio host) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some days ago an IP removed long standing content about Jones' "moon landing hoax" peddling, referencing a Youtube video by some guy. This is the content removed:

• He has accused the U.S. government of (...) the filming of fake Moon landings to hide NASA's secret technology.

I reverted this edit noting the video was not a proper source for the claim the IP was making, to have it reverted by Collect claiming the videos in place used as sources where Jones can be heard and even seen saying "they put on some fake stuff for you—see, there was a lie" and "You were shown the tinker-toy stuff because you're not supposed to see what they really got", were not a WP:RS. So I added a secondary reliable source (an article in The Daily Beast by a political journalist) and reinstated the content warning Collect (having seen him use the same tactics before) to follow WP:BRD and not to revert again. Of course he immediately reverted again this time claiming WP:BLP as a "reason" and dismissing completely the secondary sourced I had just added.

After reverting that second time, thus completely ignoring WP:BRD, Collect opened a new section in the talk page. From there on his reasons for refusing to self-revert have been: you need a "reliable secondary source" (which was already in place before he removed the content), the Daily Beast article is an "opinion source" (it is not, it's an article by a political journalist in a WP:RS), "primary video sources are,however, not permitted" (not true, they are permitted as long as no interpretation is made, which in this case is not being made since it's a source showing himself saying that), "Find a transcript for what you wish to claim" (moving goalpost now, I point out that the article indeed has the full excerpt transcripted), find a "a transcript of the show not an excerpt in an article" (now he demands a transcript for the entire show).

I told Collect numerous times that if he had an issue with the accurateness with which the content was being presented he should have edited it instead of edit-war to remove long standing content twice, completely ignoring WP:BRD. I would appreciate some input on this issue. Regards. Gaba 16:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Gaba p: He removed per BLP, BLP is exempt from 3rr. More than that, he removed a youtube video that you were using to support a fringe theory from a crackpot. Anytime an extrodinary claim is made about a living individual, reliable sources have to be used, youtube doesn't meet that criteria. Yes, I know it's a video of him, and yes, he's spewing crackpot ideas about how the moon landing was faked, however videos can be faked, and since youtube doesn't check for this on any of it's videos, it can't really be confirmed that he believes this. Now, if a reliable source (say Time Magainze, reports that Alex Jones has this theory that the moon landing was fake, that can be used. Collect is correct in this case. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 16:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Not so minor quibble: Youtube is a medium which can absolutely contain BLP-compliant sources. If the owner of a Youtube channel is considered a reliable source (example) then videos published by that owner should be considered reliable. --NeilN 16:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

If the material is only sourced to a self-published/non reliably-sourced sources, then it is absolutely correct to remove that material, per WP:ABOUTSELF. Self-published stuff like that is not a useable citation either for claims about other third parties or extraordinary beliefs about third parties. You can use it for beliefs like "The subject says they enjoy grilled cheese sandwiches" but not for claims like "The subject says lizards are from outer space and control our minds." It's different if the material comes from a reliable independent source, of course. Even then I would be cautious about adding the video as a direct citation.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Your comments do not apply, since this concerns an issue WP:ABOUTSELF permits: a source for the statement that Jones said X (so long as X is not interpreted).

Regarding an earlier comment above: BLP does not have a blanket exemption from 3RR: "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." The possibility that the video of Jones is faked is simply a conspiracy theory, par for the course for Jones and his fans, but not for Misplaced Pages. Is the video from the official Alex Jones YouTube channel? If so, at this rate anything and everything on-line is doubtful, since heck, maybe someone is putting fake news in the NYT archives or something.

The real issue is whether this (or other Jones' statements) ought to be in the article. If third-party sources have not shown interest in Jones' views on X,Y,Z, then it seems out-of-line for WP editors to include them. Stick to summarizing what third-party sources have felt worth saying about Jones, backed up by official Jones video if you like. Choor monster (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

One added problem is that a "really juicy quote" about Jones was sourced to a book whose search through google does not show that quote. Thus I am especially vigilant of misuse or "creative use" of sources on that BLP. And we should avoid pure opinion sources for claims of fact, IMO and according to WP:BLP. In short, this BLP has been shown to attract "fake quotes" or ones taken from contenxt in the past. Jones may be a loon, but we still have to follow the rules. Collect (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF absolutely applies. We can't quote every single thing people say they believe if it's only cited to an SPS or questionable source. There are defined limits. It cannot involve an exceptional claim, it can't involve a claim about a third party, it can't involve claims about events not directly related to the source. Saying the subject believes "Extraordinary claims about moon landing knowledge" has at least three strikes against it. Collect was initially correct that this needed a secondary independent source before it could be included. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

KoshVorlon & Elaqueate the secondary source has been provided and the article even contains a transcript of Jones saying those things. Neither of you mentioned this article, do you believe The Daily Beast is not a WP:RS? KoshVorlon are you saying we can't use the YT video of himself saying those things as a primary source because it might be fake? Do you have any reasons to believe this? Gaba 17:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate: Yes, there are limits, but they don't apply here. There is nothing exceptional about Jones supporting yet another conspiracy theory. An exceptional claim here would be "Alex Jones claims fluoridation is good for you", I would assume something like that is an Onion headline. Jones is talking about himself—his beliefs on certain 1969 news—and the video is used for the article on Jones. The claim cannot be used as a source for anything else. Choor monster (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Three strikes on WP:ABOUTSELF. Saying the subject believes an extraordinary claim about third parties still involves extraordinary claims about third parties. Doesn't mean it's not true that he believes it, we just need better independent sourcing that the belief is important, verified to not be a joke by the subject, not a mental lapse, etc. Not about the truth, just what we use as to say we verified our claim about what he stated.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC).

I absolutely agree that truth of "Jones said X" is not the issue here, just what are our rules for including such a factoid. I favor waiting for third-party sources to give significance. I do not view "Jones said X" as a claim about X, but about Jones, and I think this is an illogical misreading of WP:ABOUTSELF on your part. The concern over misinterpretation is irrelevant to this particular detail: it's not part of WP:ABOUTSELF, but a general issue, applied with extra concern for BLP. Choor monster (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

There are some "Jones said X" that are not usable under WP:ABOUTSELF. If the X is "Jones says Mr. McGillicuddy is a murderer." then you can't tun it on its head and just say it's a statement about Jones and what Jones happened to say. It still involves an extraordinary claim about a third party. If Jones is considered an expert or otherwise reliable source, then WP:ABOUTSELF might not apply, but if he's not it's not supposed to be only self-sourced. He's not making a claim only about himself, if he says "NASA lies". "Jones said X" still involves X (even if it's also about Jones's belief) which requires us to be more cautious about sourcing it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. This is confusing use and mention. Let me illustrate with a less all-or-nothing example. Suppose Smith is a novelist, and he's really only noted for being a novelist. If the only source of information on his fringe beliefs is his webpage, I'd say leave them out, it's not WP's job to pass on maximum trivia. But if he was interviewed 10 years ago, and the interviews were RS published, and he stated he was a truther, sure, include it then, no questions, despite the derogatory claims about Bush. But what if Smith is a major has-been and hasn't had any interviews since? And his webpage reveals he's a birther? I'd say include it, despite the derogatory claims about Obama. And since Smith is an established fringe advocate, it can't be viewed as an exceptional claim about Smith. And WP isn't making exceptional claims about Obama in this scenario. The only issue is whether WP is making an exceptional claim about Smith. Choor monster (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

If the only place for the info is his webpage I don't think it matters if he's not famous anymore or was never famous. People sometimes joke on their web-sites or don't take them seriously, especially if they're not that famous. If someone has some small fame as a novelist, I don't think a single SPS for possibly contentious material is appropriate, too much risk of OR or SYNTH from an over-enthusiastic editor not backed by a reliable source to cover their butts.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

And it completely depends on the material too, if the website said "In September, he spoke at a Birther convention." that's fine. But Misplaced Pages should never have something like "Jones said that Obama was born in Antarctica" sourced only to an WP:SPS. We can't use SPS all by themselves to report people's beliefs about other living people, even when attributed. Please keep in mind I'm only talking about material where we can only source to a SPS; there are plenty of things that can be attributed to people if they're backed up through RS. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing use and mention. "Jones said X" is a statement about Jones, not about X. Given Jones' track record, this was not a contentious claim. OR/SYNTH is simply not allowed, and WP:ABOUTSELF giving limited permission is not negated just because the risk exists. Choor monster (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

"Jones said X" is about Jones and X. If the only source was a SPS or questionable source, and the X was a contentious claim about a Misplaced Pages editor called "Choor monster", then it wouldn't be allowed in a Misplaced Pages article, even if it was written in the form "Jones said X". If the NYT mentioned the accusation, it could be possibly used, cited to the NYT. But not when it's a combination of "third party accusation" and "self-published questionable source".__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Not, it is not about X. If you only partially quote "Jones said X" you get a statement about X. By your logic it would in fact mean the NYT has become fringe because it's saying X, and X can be mentioned on WP using non-fringe sources only. But in fact the NYT does not become fringe because it would say "Jones said X". Again, for the umpteenth time, you are making the use/mention

Collect: Not finding a quote on Google, especially for recent books, is not proof of fakery, although the burden is on the quoter to give the edition/page number. (Also, 100% irrelevant to the issue at hand.) Choor monster (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The page number was given. The quote does not appear to be on that page, nor in the entire book. I find using the Google search function within a book to be fairly reliable. The same editor is involved in citing the "quote". Collect (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Google books is great, but not perfect. Go to the library. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Discussion of The Daily Beast as a reliable source - here and here.  NQ  talk 18:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Gaba_p, I said it's a different story when there's a independent reliable source for the material. For the moon landings, try using this Esquire piece. I think it should be easy to find multiple secondary sources outlining that Jones is considered a conspiracy theorist and specifically the moon landing accusations. I just think we can't and shouldn't source it directly to his raw videos. Otherwise articles about contentious figures could turn into ersatz podcast catalogues, with direct links to every nonsense idea anyone's ever had.

Independent links from reliable sources are needed for surprising and clearly extraordinary claims about people's beliefs, regardless of whether we can directly verify that someone confessed a nutty idea on their blog. It's better to summarize as the reliable sources do, than list every pronouncement he's made as if every idea deserves a place in the encyclopaedia. It's supposed to summarize what RS think about him, it's not supposed to be a laundry list of every weird thing he's said. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate I agree with you, the raw videos where there before I added the DB article and I also think adding a secondary source is the best thing to do. So given that there is a reliable secondary source in place which not only comments on that but provides a transcript of what he precisely said (which Collect dismissed claiming it's not a transcript of the entire show), do you agree that the original statement should go up? I can of course add the source you provided too. Regards. Gaba 18:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the fact he believes the moon landings were faked is verified from good secondary sources and should be included. Even though it seems counterintuitive, I don't think the transcripts are great Misplaced Pages material, in the same way that court transcripts are not as reliable for Misplaced Pages purposes as a good secondary source supplying a reliable legal interpretation. It's too easy when using purely primary material to get into OR or SYNTH problems. There's a quote where Obama mistakenly says "here in Asia" when he was in Hawaii; it would be too easy to source "Obama said he believed Hawaii was in Asia" if we allowed a transcript citation rather than a proper RS for the actual context of the quote. I think the Esquire piece shows a reliable source believes Jones is sincere when saying he believes the landings were faked, I'm probably neutral on the the Daily Beast, but it's not a bad source, just people will predictably argue if it's the main or only citation. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments Elaqueate and Choor monster, I'll await to see what KoshVorlon makes of this. Regards. Gaba 18:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Note that WP:PRIMARY makes it clear that primary sources are allowed, but must be used with extra caution for just the reasons Elaqueate summarized. They are normally worthless for evaluating notability, significance, importance. (And further note that WP:BLPPRIMARY forbids certain privacy-violating uses, not relevant here.) Choor monster (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

A point: When Jones is publishing his views of what happened at NASA half a century ago, he is not presenting the view of a primary source. He's analyzing events he had no direct part in. That makes him a self-published secondary source. He's not presenting it as material about his personal beliefs or direct experience, but as objective fact. If the material is clearly "I spent all of the Nineties investigating Moon Landing theories", then sure, that's completely about himself. If the material is framed more as "he says NASA fabricated this moon rock out of papier-mâché" then we are going beyond a summary of belief and repeating his analysis about third parties and events he was not a part of. The more it's about events or people beyond the subject's direct experience, the more we need independent reliable sources, rather than parroting material from SPS/questionable sources that we generally consider unreliable.

I think we are encouraged to use primary sources more for primary claims, (when a source is clearly talking about their direct experience in a way most people wouldn't find controversial) but we are discouraged from using any primary source when it is making secondary claims (somebody considered non-expert who wasn't in WWII talking about what happened in WWII on their blog). __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

As WP:PRIMARY says, "Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences." Jones on Jones is primary, your analysis is irrelevant. Did Jones say X or did he not? He's either secondary or tertiary on NASA, so there is no chance his self publications can be used on NASA-related pages. Choor monster (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are some sources:

• The Skeptical Inquirer, Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal., 2009 - Page 30 The show focuses on various conspiracy theories, such as those promulgated by Alex Jones about the New World Order, those on the Moon landing hoax, and HIV/AIDS denialists' theories that HIV/AIDS is a government plot.

• The People Have Spoken (and They Are Wrong): The Case Against Democracy Page, ISBN 978-1621572022 Alex Jones, a radio host who ferreted out government conspiracies behind the Sandy Hook school shooting, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the moon landing

- Cwobeel (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

"Among Jones' theories are that the moon landing was a hoax, 9/11 was an inside job by the U.S. government and the euro was a Nazi-hatched scheme to control European economies." International Business Times, emphasis mine. MastCell  04:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all for the new reliable sources contributed. I'll be adding this information back into the article in a while and will post back here to let you all know in case you want to take a look at it. Regards. Gaba 15:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to throw in my three cents: while the new sourcing is very useful, I think that the Youtube videos pass muster because they are in the realm of claims about the person himself, ultimately, and not about third parties. The purpose is to show that this person promulgates conspiracy theories and not to discuss the conspiracy theories themselves. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The videos are not good by themselves. You're saying we could interpret the video as being proof he's a conspiracy theorist based on the SPS videos alone. That's OR. That would be like saying Colbert videos are sufficient to prove he's a conservative. This is exactly why we need independent sourcing for contentious material. They aren't claims only about himself and can't be sourced only to self-published/questionable sources.__ E L A Q U E A T E 12:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Avoid the interpretation. Just quote Jones, with full source (never a context-free clip). As for Colbert being quoted misleadingly, that's ruled out because there's sources to the contrary, hence it's "contentious". What on earth is "contentious" about yet one more conspiracy from Jones? Choor monster (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It involves a contentious claim about a third party, whoever it comes from, and whether or not the source is considered routinely incorrect (because really? the more unreliable the source, the more of his self-published opinions we can document on Misplaced Pages? That's completely backwards). If we allow self-published and questionable sources to be an allowed source for random contentious opinions of third parties, then the Obama page could filled with Birther nonsense sourced only to self-published youtube videos, because we were "just citing a personal opinion". This is about sourcing. Ignoring guidelines, Jones wikipedia page could be a chronological list of every statement he's self-published, sourced directly and solely to every podcast and youtube video.

An example: "Mr Smith wrote on his blog that his neighbour Mr Jones is a big fat thief" is not currently allowed by policy on any article page if the only source is Mr Smith's blog. You can't say "It's just Smith's opinion" and you can't say the material had nothing to do with the neighbor Mr Jones.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Your scenarios are completely specious. They only work as you say if you ignore existing guidelines. The reason birther claims are not on Obama's page is precisely because the only reliably sourced information we have is of the form "Smith said Obama is Kenyan", which is of zero relevance to Obama, even if the NYT quotes Smith saying this. Having a big mouth does not make one relevant to the topics that come out of the mouth, but may be relevant to the owner of the mouth in question. If such a claim appears in a RS, then such a claim can show up on a birther page, and they do. If only sourced from Smith's webpage, the only place it could appear on WP, as WP:ABOUTSELF says, would be at the Smith page, or closely allied Smith pages (his TV show, say), and so long as it is not contentious to claim "Smith said Obama is Kenyan". As I mentioned above, I would only accept his webpage as a source for this if we have RS evidence that Smith is given to saying fringe statements in general. Choor monster (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay just to correct something possibly dangerously misleading there, SPS can't be used if they involve claims about third-party living people. Period. It doesn't matter what page. You can't tuck it in a side page, you can't put it in an infobox. If the only source is an SPS it can't be used. You tend to confirm this yourself by saying you'd only use it if you had more sources than just the SPS. It has to be more specific than "often known to have bad ideas" though; it would have to directly reference the contentious material. Not indirectly or by editor assumption. ("Smith said Obama is Kenyan" involves a claim about Obama, even if it also represents a claim about what Smith said. Can't be sourced solely to an SPS.)__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

But again, it's not a claim about Obama, it's a claim about Smith. You can only turn it into a claim about Obama by quote-mining or otherwise erroneously describing the source, and that's already not allowed. The proof is what I said before: if Smith is quoted in multiple RS, they are still not a claim about Obama, which is why they do not appear on the Obama page. They are not just fringe, they are 100% irrelevant. We do allow fringe when it's made itself relevant. (I believe most of the Republican agenda today is fringe, and some of it is probably officially WP:FRINGE, yet it makes it onto the Obama page since it relevant to Obama's career as POTUS.) Birtherism is 100% irrelevant. Lots of information about Obama is true, non-contentious, and ultimately, 100% irrelevant. (Count me as bothered by things like the Justin Bieber DUI issue that just showed up here. It's pointless trivia until he makes a song/video/SNL skit about it. In contrast, the Mel Gibson DUI turned out to be immediately relevant.)

Note that other WP rules may apply in your "big fat thief" neighbor scenario—any permit I'm claiming WP:ABOUTSELF gives does not override other WP rules no matter what—for example, if the neighbor is an unknown, BLP privacy restrictions do not allow even a mention of the neighbor, not even when non-contentious or outright flattering. By insisting on other sources, I am solely concerned that "Smith said X" may be contentious about Smith, and without RS-verified evidence/context that this is not contentious about Smith, I see no permit. (That is why your Colbert example doesn't work: we need RS to tell us Smith's similar statements are both of interest and on-the-level.) Any Smith statements about what other birthers have told him in private are similarly disallowed: as an SPS, his webpage may only be used for information about Smith. Whatever he says about Obama is definitely not information about Obama. Calling it information about Obama does not make it so, whether it appears in SPS or RS.

I am not responding any further on this issue. Choor monster (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe time to close this long discussion? Feedback has been given in the noticeboard, so the discussion can now continue on article's talk. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks all for the input. The edit is back up sourced by the original DB article and I added the IBT article too. Regards. Gaba 01:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Bob Avakian

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

The BLP has strong POV piece based excessive quotes and 90% of text cited to the subject's own memoir and publications. Could use some additional eyes and aggressive clean up in my opinion. My assessment and recommendations for clean up can be seen on the talk page here.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

As someone who has been involved in attempts at making changes regarding this article; I would greatly appreciate some outside veteran editors to come in with a pair of fresh eyes and make some serious changes to get the article to conform to wikipedia standards. - xcuref1endx (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing. Keithbob, thanks for bringing attention to this matter. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Apparent lack of reliable sources covering most-notable point about an actor's biography

As far as I can tell this person is only notable for a co-starring role in the 15th season of Power Rangers. I'm not a fan of the show, but I am a fan of the internet personality Linkara, who occasionally makes videos about the show. I got from the most recent such video (29:20~30:20) that the only thing that sets the actor in question apart from the dozens of other individuals who have appeared on the show is a rumour that he did something not nice. I came to Misplaced Pages to find out more and found an article that was basically a promotional page and of course didn't even mention it. The page history doesn't look good, though: it seems a number of users (IPs and SPAs, mostly) tried to add the information but it was removed as BLP-violation.

I can't find a reliable source that either verifies or disproves the rumour. The video I linked to above is from a series that is generally trustworthy, but the sole person responsible for it has occasionally uses Misplaced Pages as a source. I know the standard modus operandi in these situations is to leave it out, but isn't the standard modus operandi when there are insufficient reliable sources to discuss a topic objectively to delete/merge the article? Can anyone else find any decent sources for this topic? What do people say about merging the content into List of Power Rangers actors or some such?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Y'know, the fact that Linkara, who has his own online TV series on a fairly-exclusive website that he gets paid for, does not get his own Misplaced Pages article while each of about ten leads in a single season of a children's show gets one seems a bit odd. (If "online TV shows" don't get their own articles how does one explain this?) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

And what is the article, Hijiri? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The article is this one, as I indicated in the first line. Several edits from 17 June 2010 have been hidden, and one account was indefinitely blocked for BLP violations, which makes me think there might have been some serious issues with the article that are now hidden. This means, of course, that I can't see what exactly those edits were, but given this and other edits it seems almost certain that the issues involved the same ones I'm talking about. Additionally, this string of edits made the article into essentially a promotional piece. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Jennifer Lawrence

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

BLP watchers might want to chime in here. --NeilN 16:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Have done so. Tabloid rubbish like that, even if not in a tabloid, does not belong in a BLP. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Your reasoning has no basis in policy. Misplaced Pages reports what is covered in reliable sources and the incident has be covered in dozens of international newspapers. TF90 (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing isn't the issue. As someone else pointed out in the discussion on the talk page, BLP specifically disallows this kind of material: "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist..." Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Reporting facts reported in international newspapers is hardly sensationalist. TF90 (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

In the past couple of days it has been mainstreamed, moving from tabloids to The New York Times front page, so it is now notable and I think the BLP issue is moot. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 celebrity pictures hack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In a related manner, I've removed the name of a person accused by Redditors of the breach per WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn

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

Additional eyes from experienced BLP hands would be appreciated here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific as to the problem, here or on the talk page. The last posting on the page is clear as to policy but ambiguous as to the material in the article at issue. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The material in question isn't currently in the article, but has been proposed for inclusion. Several previous versions were revdeleted by administrators based on BLP concerns. It centers on disputed allegations around a person's intimate relationships. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes I see that it has been deleted. I'll watch the article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The article has now been fully protected.--Auric talk 20:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Ian Callinan

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

The controversy section is defamatory: Callinan did not give the advice that resulted in an abuse of process -- it was his instructing solicitors. The trial judge made no adverse findings against Callinan. The trial judge did not "refer the matter to the Attorney-General"(invalid citation). The proposition that the Attorney-General may have decided not proceed with the matter because of Callinan's judicial appointment is defamatory(invalid citation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawandstuff (talk • contribs) 12:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:NLT. GiantSnowman 12:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a legal threat. I've read the case citation provided and it doesn't support the assertions made in the controversy section. I'm just highlighting the fact that the material is defamatory and should be changed.--Lawandstuff (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Lawandstuff: - I agree, that's not a legal threat. Any content that can not be verified in reliable sources can be removed or revised by anyone. Just make sure to leave a detailed edit summary and be prepared to explain your removal on the article talk page if challenged.- MrX 13:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Ronald R. Fieve

Mysteriously tagged for deletion for lacking citations.... FinalAccount (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@FinalAccount: PsychCentral is user-submitted (not reliable), and "Lithium..." was authored by Fieve. Neither meets the requirement for a reliable source written about the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding unlike the tagger, however the Lithium.... chapter is obviously authored by Fieve but it is not self-published. The other source is simply an extracts from Fieve's website which can be linked to directly instead (remember that WP editors are meant to try to improve articles in preference to fly-by tagging) and is perfectly acceptable as entirely basic biographical material from the source. FinalAccount (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Lloyd Webber

Andrew Lloyd Webber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - please urgently revdel this - highly defamatory. Sorry I can't get on IRC to request it there. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I have emailed the oversight team accordingly.--ukexpat (talk) 15:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done--ukexpat (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely brilliant - many thanks for your help DBaK (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Penelope Wilton

A grave error in your bio details of Penelope Wilton. True that she was at one time married to Daniel Massey,but Anna Massey is Daniel's sister NOT his daughter,and therefore Ms Wilton's sister-in-law. Both Daniel and Anna (both now deceased) were the children of Raymond Massey. Please correct. Thank you, Michael Sharpe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.220.162 (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you are looking at but the personal life section of Penelope Wilton just says: "Between 1975 and 1984, Wilton was married to the actor Daniel Massey. They had a daughter, Alice, born in 1977", which appears to be correct per your message.--ukexpat (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

This seems to confirm that all is well in the article and there's no error at the moment. (No mention of the ip's "Anna", only the daughter "Alice").__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Roberta Taylor

Could I get some eyes on Roberta Taylor, please? There's a newish editor working there and some of his/her edits have been a bit questionable, but I can't follow up at the moment. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

So despite me contacting you, instead of engaging with me you've posted here instead? OK. What have you found questionable about my edits? For the small amount of detail I've added, there are multiple refs in place and is also all available in her book Too Many Mothers.

Wronghood (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems like trivial tabloid gossip because a cousin didn't like how the family was portrayed in a memoir? If the material is tabloid-gossipy, it's not good for a BLP article.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Jihadi John

Should we be identifying three humans, by name, as possible candidates? At least two of them definitely aren't John... -- Y not? 03:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

jeffrey_fenwick

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

Dear Sir I have read an article posted on Wikepedia about Jeffrey (should be Jeffery) Fenwick in which it states that he has been diagnosed with Cancer at the Mater Dei hospital in Bulawayo. This is not true, he has not been diagnosed with cancer. He underwent an operation which was complicated by a heart condition ans is recuperating at my home in Bulawayo. (He is my father).If you would like more accurate information I will be happy to probvide it. Regards Jeff Fenwick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.237.194.123 (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Praveen Togadia

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

The subject is a very popular figure(1,88,000 Google hits). Link to disputed content which was re-inserted three times before any discussion on the talk page was started. It is present in the article as of now. I have never made any edits to this article, but I am involved in Indian politics area. Talk page discussion is here.

1. From WP:PUBLICFIGURE: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." 2. "The petition was endorsed by the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics in its Editorial." is not present in the provided reference. 3. "according to an analysis in the press" is typical WP:GRAPEVINE. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

These claims are a bit hilarious.

1. AmritasyaPutra is contesting the mention of a petition by Medico Friend Council against Praveen Togadia on the grounds that it is "grapevine". There are three references cited in the article itself: , and . The reference is The Hindu, a national newspaper. The reference is the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, a national journal of physicians. If we do a Google search for "Togadia" with "Medico Friend Council", we get 129 hits. If we search for him along with "Medical Council of India", Google brings up even more references. This is by no means a "grapevine". It is public information.
2. AmritasyaPutra also claims that the endorsement of the petition is "not present" in the journal. I see very clearly the statement "Shouldn't medical associations withdraw the license of Dr Togadia - and all others in the medical profession who have spoken and acted as he has?" which was precisely the content of the petition.
3. AmritasyaPutra also claims that the so-called "disputed content" was re-inserted three times before any discussion. When? By whom? I have stated on the talk page that I have re-inserted it only once, after the discussion started, after I have produced additional support. To be precise, the talk page issue was opened at 03:43 UTC on 3rd September, and I re-inserted the material at 20:16 UTC along with a reference to substantiate "notability" of the petition along with a response on the talk page Talk:Praveen_Togadia#Non_notable_controversy. No issues to do with BLP were raised on 3rd September.

AmritasyaPutra got involved at 08:49 UTC on 4th September, claimed that it was BLP issue because it supposedly constitutes "grapevine". Frankly, I don't see it. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, You definitely gave a weird interpretation to what I said above.--AmritasyaPutra✍ 15:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Kautilya3, you still don't seem to be changing the fact that every single news channel or journalist seeks for more drama and news. There is no guarantee that any credibility exists there. So a non notable petition by a school students is a blatant propaganda, violation of BLP.

You should not paste the refuted argument here, keep your explanation short and new. We are here to seek opionion from other editors, not to paste the arguments from talk page. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Reputable newspapers are reliable sources as per WP:RS. If you believe this is just "propaganda", you should be able to find other reliable sources that contradict it. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

We have enough reliable sources for claiming that world will end in 2012. Doesn't means we promote such gossips, you have to verify each. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

There is not a single reliable source that talks about 2012 in its own voice. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Kautilya3 doesn't get the basic that not everything has a contradictory view published in RS. Why don't you interpret it such that no RS has every considered it worth spending their editorial space on such things? If someone says Aeishwarya had an affair with Salman, and may would say that, you are not going to find a RS which specifically says they did NOT have an affair. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Beatrix Campbell

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

I wish to report a problem occurring with the Misplaced Pages site "Beatrix Campbell". I am not Beatrix Campbell, nor am I a relative or close friend. Like her I am a researcher and writer, and I know and value her work. Last year I noticed defamatory material on the site. I consulted Campbell and made corrections, with her agreement (see Cynthia Cockburn, 2 December 2013). Since then several seriously biased and hostile reinsertions and new material have been made relating to highly contested contemporary debates on the issue of child sexual abuse (4 and 22 August 2014). On 22 August 2014 I wrote to Misplaced Pages to ask for advice on procedure to protect or remove the entry. Robert Laculus replied helpfully on Aug 22 and this report is in response to his advice.

The entry "Beatrix Campbell" did not originate with Ms Campbell herself. It has from the start contained serious bias, inaccuracies and defamatory material. I can substantiate this in detail as and when appropriate. My question now is how can I deal with a situation in which the Campbell entry appears to be an arena in which certain parties are continually intervening to rehearsing longstanding critiques of evidence of child abuse in Britain.

As recently as yesterday, Sept 3, a long politically interested addition to this effect was made to the site. Much but not all of it was immediately excised - perhaps due to my previous reporting of a BLP problem. I have myself intervened today (sturdytree, Sept 4) to revert to a brief factual rendering that is to the best of my knowledge accurate and unbiased, and has been verified as acceptable to Ms. Campbell.

I understand from the Misplaced Pages website that there are two possible resources for dealing with such a case - one is called "blocking" and is to prevent further interventions by identified persons. The other is "protection", whereby an administrator may agree to protect or semi-protect pages when convinced that inappropriate material may be added or restored. This seems to me to promise a more satisfactory and enduring solution, since there appear to be not one but a 'community' of parties engaged in combat with Campbell via the site.

I would urgently appreciate advice of administrators as to whether one or both of these steps is appropriate and possible in the present case, and guidance as to how to proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturdytree (talk • contribs) 11:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sturdytree: I just took a look, and the first half of what you removed appears to be reliably sourced, and the what was in the article was what was in the source. The portion where it says the team investigating was friend of ... was not in the article at all, and that could be removed, but not the first half. Can you explain why you'd remove the whole paragraph ? KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 17:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It would appear that sturdytree is interested in expunging unpleasant but well sourced material from the article, against WP:BLP. I don't like where this is going. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know anything about this person, and I can't rightly figure out what they're trying to argue here, but Sturdytree's recent edits look fine to me. The fat paragraph they removed contains names that probably shouldn't be mentioned, and accusations of undue influence sourced to tabloids and sustained by innuendo, with the addition of (unacceptable) primary material (court documents). I'd like for a smart person like Newyorkbrad to have a quick look--thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Seriously, we may have to go back to this version. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I entirely support the removal and redaction of the sep 3rd edit, but I don't understand the suggestion to stubbify the article, as I think that though the source for the recently removed sections (the Mail) is distasteful in itself, it is accurate in the facts used. Campbell was a figure in an unpleasant episode in the recent history of the NE of England, to wipe it away is not what wikipedia should do. The article as it stands shows her notability (OBE anybody?) but is lacking in important detail due to the most recent edits. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Roxy the dog. Just because some media (media that Drmies labels "tabloid") have chosen to cover a story, and others have not, does not mean that the basic facts of that story as related in those media are unsuitable for Misplaced Pages. Sturdytree has not stated that there is any core untruth in the content that has been deleted, all that editor is saying is that the subject of the article has said that she disagrees with the content. Since when has the content of a blp article required to be "acceptable" to the subject covered? I find the assertion by Sturdytree that this article must be "verified as acceptable to Ms. Campbell" to be very troubling. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, for the hell of it you should click on the "next diff" link in that early version and check out the sourcing. Or you can go to a more recent version, before Sturdytree got to it, and see what the sources are--one from the Guardian, sure, but then there's court documents (unacceptable in a BLP) and an article from the Daily Mail, also unacceptable. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, please cite some discussion that places a blanket ban on using the Daily Mail as a source for BLP articles (or Misplaced Pages articles in general if there is nothing blp specific). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Huh? It's a tabloid, a gossip rag. I'm sure John can easily point you to such a discussion, but let's establish first that common sense is of great help here. Drmies (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds awfully like an "I just don't like it". You are the one wanting to exclude this source as a source, so it is really up to you to back that exclusion opinion up (if you are still holding to it). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, The editor that is responsible for firing my enthusiasm for wikipedia has said that there are three things you need to be successful here. Sources, sources and sources. In this particular article, I'd add a fourth source! The article version after your stub link above is truly terrible, and clearly, court documentation (that doesn't seem to be available) which is the report of a Judicial Enquiry into the biggest child abuse scandal in the UK last century, is an unreliable source. In my own noodling around (I'd hardly call it research) on Google, I have come across the European "right to be forgotten" notification on two different related names. I too would like to know if there is policy or guidelines of some kind which rules out the "Fail" as a source? (forgot to sign, sorry)-Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Roxy, if I were certain about everything here I would have already nixed the section and deleted it from the history. I'm not that certain about tone and content so I haven't. That the Daily Mail is in general not to be used for BLPs, and especially not when it comes to Horrible Crimes and Suggestive Innuendo, that's, as I said above, common sense. It is a better idea to milk the Guardian article for what it's worth, and I may just do that. In fact, I'll ping a couple of folks with some experience in Brrrritish matters: Sitush, Eric Corbett, if you have a moment, will you please have a look at this discussion and the article? Your help is appreciated. Thanks Roxy, Drmies (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The BLP policy is quite specific about the use of tabloid sources such as the Daily Mail. Eric Corbett 18:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It does not say that. The BLP policy talks about "tabloid journalism" - that is, if the source (i.e., the article or commentary or editorial or whatever containing the material) is written in an overly sensationalist "tabloid" style it should not be used if it is the only sourcing. I have not looked at the sources in question so I do not know their content or the journalistic approach. But if it is the August 3, 2002 story titled The Witchfinder we are talking about, except for the typical ott headline and the synopsis-blurb (or whatever that is called), it seems non-tabloid in style. Anyway, I see no blanket ban on stories originating in the Daily Mail, or even in using Daily Mail sources written in a tabloid style as long as there are other sources that consider the same story in a non-sensationalist way. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't use the Daily Mail for BLPs or, indeed, any biographical articles. It is often highly sensationalised even when discussing people who by common consent lead fairly mundane lives; when there are suggestions of something out of the ordinary in a life, the DM almost always goes overboard. Sometimes they do it subtly, more often they take a hatchet to it. - Sitush (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The present state of the article is unsatisfactory. It is mostly written from a wholly uncritical perspective. Campbell (like others) badly and publicly burnt her fingers over the Satanic abuse affair, and it should not be expunged from the article because it is now awkward for for fans. Johnbod (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Kakan Hermansson

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

Swedish press is today reporting about a yet unidentified police officer who has used a computer inside the police head office in Stockholm to edit both the svWiki en EnWiki article about Kakan Hermansson. And I see now that it is true. She wrote some negative article about the police and now some angry policeman is discrediting her. Just giving you all a heads up to watch out if you have her article on your watchlists.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Well, that's what being a lesbian activist will earn you. I've removed one of the edits and have left a note for the editor who, no doubt, has moved on to a different IP. Let me know if this continues, BabbaQ; if need be we'll semi-protect. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• One IP blocked, two edits rev-deleted, semi-protection applied. Yeah, total CENSORSHIP!!! Drmies (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Tom Schweich

An American politician whose article has been fluffed up considerably based on primary sources. I've reverted those changes, but the article could benefit from the eyes of experienced editors. There's a couple of SPAs in the history (no need for me to link them--you'll see them immediately) and I have warned the most recent of them, Bradleyhaberstroh, for non-neutral editing. (See also Google.) Anyway, your attention is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Are there BLP issues? You may wish to ask for help on a different noticeboard. Choor monster (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Seriously? Yeah, it's a BLP and it's been fluffed up. He's a politician. This is an election year. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Seriously, yes. You mentioned primary sources, sounds like WP:OR problems. You mentioned fluffing up and the like, it sounds like WP:NPOV problems. You mentioned SPAs, could be WP:COI or worse. As for this noticeboard: "This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." Are these problem editors also editing Schweich's opponent? And up top it also says: "For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, consider using Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Perhaps we need an election-year noticeboard that cuts across issues, but until then, you haven't given any hint of BLP policy specific violations, hence my comment. Seriously. Choor monster (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

BLP articles often have to be protected from friends or supporters making them look to the general reader like ads, fantasies, or resumes. Sometimes BLP subjects will demand changes to an article that, if they received them, are more likely to put them in serious danger of public ridicule. WP:BLP seeks to avoid all situations of avoidable harm, removing material whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable. If someone's making a BLP non-compliant with WP:BLP, it doesn't matter if it's friend or foe, it's still an issue regarding a biography of a living person.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Elaqueate. I'm not going to waste any more time explaining the obvious to this other editor; I have 236 edits here and I think I know what this board is for. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Kobe Bryant accuser

I have the impression that WP:BLPNAME means his accuser's name is not allowed on WP. There was one editor who apparently was determined to get the name in despite being told repeatedly not to even mention it on the talk page. It's there right now: Talk:Kobe Bryant sexual assault case#Name of accuser, serving no purpose of course. Choor monster (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Rojda Aykoç

An editor, "Why should I have a User Name?", has been repeatedly altering text in the article so that it states fairly unequivocally that this singer is a terrorist supporter who was "arrested by a Turkish court for making "propaganda of an illegal organization"", rather than the article having the factual and calmly neutral was "arrested by Turkish authorities who alleged she made "propaganda for an illegal organization"".

The sources considered the arrest and charge as essentially a "put up" job. It was part of an attempt, using legal intimidation, to close down by other means public displays of Kurdish culture in Turkey after existing Turkish laws that made such displays illegal were relaxed due to EU demands. The fact that Aykoç never served a day of the 20-month sentence she got for just singing in public a song in Kurdish indicates that nobody (not even in Turkey) seriously thinks her guilty of a real crime. I should also note that Why should I have a User Name? is trying to have the article deleted. In his AfD, he himself called her prosecution an "absurd court adventure" and her sentence an "absurd court ruling" - but the sensationalist wording he wants added to the article do not suggest an "absurd" prosecution. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Well, what's going on here isn't such a big thing since the quotation marks make it clear that this is a statement made not in Misplaced Pages's voice. It's an awkward and grammatically challenging sentence, and Tiptoe's version was better, but it's now gone anyway, courtesy of Boleyn. Why should I et cetera, it's probably best if you leave this article alone. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Emmanuel Dahngbay Zuu (Mr. Zuu)

Can someone check out this edit? It says the relatively unknown person "allegedly" was involved in violence, but it's not clear whether the newspaper is reporting what the police allege, or whether it's anonymous. Some of the material about the person is sourced to this which is the comment section of this website.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh I checked it again and it looks handled by another editor.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Ardian Fullani

There seems to have been a recent controversy in Albania regarding Fullani and there is a sentence at the end regarding it (though WP:BLPCRIME might apply). However the article looks like a press release / advert so needs a clean up and some references if anyone is up to it. I would but I don't have time at the moment. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Map of India shown from the OCHA source is biased and government of India doesn't recognize it.

The map of India shown on this site is biased and is not recognized by the government of India. The north most part of India i.e., J&K is a verymuch part of India. The reason being India is having it's control over this area which is not shown as part of India. This needs to be updated with the accurate map released by government of India. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proverbiumworld (talk • contribs) 07:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but this page is for discussing problems with article concerning living persons, you need to raise it at Talk:India but note this has been covered before with the comment that "The map shows the actual borders and all related claims; it cannot exclusively present the official views of India, Pakistan, or China." MilborneOne (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution