Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aaron Brenneman (talk | contribs) at 02:40, 21 January 2016 (Reverted edits by Jbhunley (talk) to last version by Orthodox2014). 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

Paul Frampton

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

I am in receipt of an email today from Paul Frampton indicating that he considers this replacement of his deletions defamatory, and asks that the information be removed permanently. He points out that the standard of proof in Argentina where he was convicted is considerably weaker than it would be in the US (analogous to simple preponderance for tourists facing smuggling charges, instead of beyond a reasonable doubt) and that his back pay was restored in part due to this situation. There are indications at that the information was intially inserted as part of a sensationalist "hatchet job," by an editor who was eventually blocked at AN/I, as part of an extensive group of sockpuppets. So I believe the information should be removed and the article should be protected. What is the proper process for this request? 67.6.187.213 (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It is a difficult BLP. The sources may be OK, but we may have an issue of WP:UNDUE weight.- Cwobeel (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed a complex issue. If you want to get up to speed take a look at the links at Talk:Paul Frampton#Conviction section for some of the high and low points. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The edit the IP is trying to make simply isn't supported by the source he is using. However link rot is starting to damage some of the other sources the article relies on, so it may be time for an uninvolved experienced editor to take another look. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

We can certainly tell the later parts of the story including the award of back pay. But the later developments do not add up to a reason to delete the entire story. There seems to be an assumption that American standards (e.g. of criminal trials) are the only ones that can/ought to apply, such that if other standards are used the outcome is unfair -- with the further implication that it can't be related on Misplaced Pages. That latter implication is the evident root of a misunderstanding here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The weight given is absolutely and utterly UNDUE in any event, and should be greatly reduced in size in the BLP. Collect (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. For what it's worth I'm happy with your cut down version. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Another editor seems to feel "the more detail the better" alas - even though his interpretation of WP:BLP rather is at odds with my belief that seeking to harm the subject is not a proper aim of any Misplaced Pages biography. If anyone else feels that the details of the Argentina prosecution's case is important to this biography, please weigh in. Collect (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Manuel Pinho

• Manuel Pinho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article received some massive updates in the last week, none of which appears to be intended to be entirely positive, followed by massive whitewashing. I can see several problems with the content, which was removed variously as "highly malicious", "totally false", "impossible", "insulting", etc. For a balanced approach it could use some help from the regulars here - especially Portugese speakers. -- zzuuzz 19:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• I do not see any glaring POV issues. If there are, re-add the POV tag and start a discussion in talk.- Cwobeel (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Zhou Youguang

Zhou Youguang's birthdate hasn't been verified. Yet there's massive edit warring to claim him as one of the List of oldest living people. His birth date should be removed per WP:V until it has been verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.72.99.79 (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done I see two sources there for his DOB. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cwobeel:. Join us at Talk:Zhou Youguang, the argument is whether the GRG has verified his birth date and they claim to be the sole expert on people's birth dates if people live page age 110 so screw all other sources until an "international body that specifically deals in longevity research" or whatever screwy language they come up with supports their point. This argument is actually an extension of the argument at the oldest living people page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Andy Reid

Andy Reid is being repeatedly vandalized, probably because of . (And the vandalism is showing up off Misplaced Pages, e.g. . Perhaps it could be semi-protected for a day or so? --Jahaza (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done I gave it a couple day semiprotection, which I expect will be enough. --joe decker 16:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Emídio Brasileiro

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

The article Emídio Brasileiro was recently started again and seems to have all the same problems that it did when I requested it be deleted last year. Essentially it is written as an advertisement for this professor and his ideas. It is also poorly cited, badly translated, and contains a bunch of links in the text to other websites. It is just a mess. I recognize that any further intervention or tagging on my part is likely to devolve into an edit war, since that is what happened before. In the fall of 2015, I tagged the article only to have an unregistered user immediately untag it. I'm not going to get into that again, but I'd appreciate another set of eyes—preferably an admin. It's too bad the prior history is just gone after a deletion. Is there some log of the past fracas? giso6150 (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The latest strategy seems to be pushing this article through Google translate (or some other program) and publishing lots of other language versions. It seems to me that this title should be salted. I have read up on the admin permissions to see past deletions, etc. since my first post, so I don't need to be pointed towards that answer; I'll wait for an admin. giso6150 (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it meets GNG, given the sources provided. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I will remove the Notability tag and add a tags to clean up some of the other more egregious problems related to tone and translation issues. giso6150 (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Evan Stone

There is no credible source which proves Evan Stone (Pornographic Actor) was born in Ames, IA. This bit of information should probably be deleted from the biography page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.49.190 (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed.--ukexpat (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Woody Woodmansey

I think Woody Woodmansey is not the last surviving member of the Ziggy Stardust lineup as Mike Garson still is alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.70.117 (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Mattress Performance

Should the page Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) explicitly specify that there were not multiple rape claims? (The three claims mentioned in this article are: one of rape, one of attempted groping, and one of emotional abuse during a long-term relationship, by three separate women.)

I added mention of this in this diff because it appeared to me that the wording of the article might suggest that there were multiple rape claims. It is my view that it is important not to give this false impression, and this warrants explicitly stating that the other two claims did not allege rape.

Note that no one was ever charged with a crime in this case, and WP:BLPCRIME applies to the relatively unknown accused student (whose name nevertheless can easily be googled). --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe the wording suggested there were multiple rape claims. I think adding 'but not rape' would be as helpful as adding 'but not murder', and just as silly. PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This is how it read:

Sulkowicz alleges that she was slapped, choked, and anally raped in her dorm room by another student, on the first day of her second year in August 2012, during what began as a consensual sexual encounter. The student Sulkowicz accused strongly denies the allegation, insisting that the encounter was entirely consensual. In April 2013, 8 months after the encounter, Sulkowicz filed a complaint with the university. Sulkowicz says she filed her complaint after she encountered two other women who said they had been victimized by the same individual. Shortly after Sulkowicz filed her complaint, the two other students with whom she was acquainted also filed complaints with the university against the same student.

I'll let others judge whether it's silly to clarify this. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, here's how that last sentence looked before you reverted me- slightly different to the quote you've got.

Shortly after Sulkowicz filed her complaint, the two other students with whom she was acquainted also filed complaints with the university against the same student alleging sexual misconduct.

PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that was added after my diff above. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with PeterTheFourth—we don't need to list allegations that were not made, only allegations that were made. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Wasn't there also a complaint filed by a male student? --DHeyward (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

  That's right! These sources say that there were three female complainants and one male complainant. Perhaps the article should be edited to mention this. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As does this Article that summarizes in detail what went on with the male complainant, as well as other evidence of conspiracy to go after the accused man. Do we really want to go there?Mattnad (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Can we at least clarify that there were no police reports or criminal charges? Both of these accusations were mild and highly equivocal - the one which I described as "attempted groping" for example, actually alleged that he held her arm and motioned as if to kiss her, but did not do so, and did not pursue when she pulled away. It's not clear that either accused the person of criminal conduct at all - they were allegations of school policy violations. On the basis of this, the person has been accused of being a "serial rapist" and subjected to death threats - I think this makes it pertinent to clarify that there was only one rape allegation.

Regarding the fourth allegation, it was made much later and is not necessary to the narrative. It was groping allegation, this time severe and unequivocal. Again, no charges. Previous consensus was to exclude it per WP:BLPCRIME. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Stating that there were no police reports or criminal charges sounds fine to me, assuming that that is supported by sources. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Except that it's false and Sulkowicz filed a police report and they declined to even seek indictment. --DHeyward (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@DHeyward: I was referring to the lack of police reports by the other two women. I can understand why some people are not sympathetic to this guy, but I don't see why it's controversial to mention that the other two accusations weren't of rape. There's no question about that, and clearly a lot of confusion about it, and it requires literally three words. Whether or not we think he's guilty, it's not our place to ensure he "gets what's coming to him" by ensuring the situation sounds damning. It in no way impugns anyone's integrity to make the simple factual observation that there was only one rape accusation. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sammy, is it actually true that there was only one rape accusation? This source indicates that "Natalie" (a pseudonym for the former girlfriend) saw "their sexual relations as non-consensual", and this source says that all three women filed their complaints under "non-consensual sexual intercourse". Are there any sources that indicate that "Natalie"'s complaint did not include allegations of rape? —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

"Natalie" did not allege rape. She alleged "non-consensual" sex according to the school standard, which differs markedly from the legal standard, because she felt like he was not willing to see her unless they had sex. Under the school's standard this can be considered coercion. She also said, as referenced in the Cathy Young piece you just cited, that she did not view the relations as non-consensual at the time. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The second source I listed above says "The Columbia policy on 'gender-based misconduct' describes what a court might consider criminal activity with muted euphemisms: rape becomes 'non-consensual sexual intercourse.'" This seems to contradict your implication that what the school calls "non-consensual" sex is not rape. Is there a source that says that what Columbia calls "non-consensual sexual intercourse" is not actually rape? —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Columbia doesn't call it rape, and the bwog article describes it in enough detail to tell it does not meet the legal definition of rape. I described one of the allegations above (the "umwanted sexual touching" one) and it is clearly not anything like a rape allegation. Natalie's allegation stated that at the time of the sexual intercourse she regarded it as consensual, and she came to regard it as what the university calls "non-consensual sexual intercourse" months after the breakup. (Note that "Sara" in that article is Sulkowicz.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, no, "Josie" did not file her complaint under "non-consensual sexual intercourse" - not that it matters. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not agree that the bwog article has enough detail for us to determine that Natalie's allegations did not include rape. At best, that sounds like original research. We certainly should not include the words "but not rape" in the article without a clear source saying that the allegations did not include rape. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, the source you cited above at least says "Actually, only one of the charges against """"""""" was a clear allegation of rape." --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

That's true, and it's better than nothing, though the use of the word "clear", especially combined with Cathy Young's known biases, makes me somewhat distrustful of it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

My impression is that all the claims lack the elements of a crime. Any terms that imply criminality (i.e. "rape") should not be in the article at all. Sulkowicz allegations are the most compelling yet lack even an indictable "ham sandwich" infraction so the article should be written in that tone. --DHeyward (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note: User:Mattnad and User:Cla68 weighed in to agree with Sammy1339 at Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). I suggest that we keep discussion of this issue centralized here. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Since the article focuses primary on Sulcowicz motivation for the performance art, her motivation is salient, but arguably there's no need to mention the other complaints in the paragraph, particularly since the university did not find him responsible of any misconduct/assault. Right now, we have very limited detail on the other complaints, or how relatively minor they were. As written, they immediately follow Sulcowicz rape accusations which can lead to false impression. Expecting the casual reader to parse the differences between rape, sexual assault, and sexual misconduct in that context and detail level is not realistic or fair in the context of BLP. So we could remove those extraneous accusations, or we could qualify the accusations of the other parties accordingly per Sammy1339's suggestion which is short and simple.Mattnad (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with your suggestion of removing the other two complaints, but I remember a past discussion concluding that we need to mention them in order to explain the reason Sulkowicz gave for waiting eight months to file her complaint. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

We don't need to explain anything. It's rather presumptive that "waiting 8 months" is somehow wrong and requires explanation. --DHeyward (talk) 07:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall that discussion, but considering that concern now, I'm not sure it matters. The delay in reporting is irrelevant to the Mattress Performance itself. At most, it goes to her credibility, which the article is already light addressing on due to strenuous efforts to keep things like her facebook postings out, even though they were reported by sources like the NY Times The accused "says that he prevailed despite Columbia’s refusal to consider his best evidence: Facebook messages that he and Sulkowicz sent to each other before and after the alleged rape. The messages sound friendly: “I feel like we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz/because we still haven’t really had a paul-emma chill sesh since summmmerrrr,”. You may be aware of the claims that mentioning her facebook postings at all, and describing them as friendly, was not supported by the sources etc. etc. Keeping content that's misleading and unfavorable to the accused in, while simultaneously barring favorable content from reliable sources like the NY Times out is not exactly balanced.Mattnad (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, those Facebook postings, like when she asked the accused to "Fuck her in the butt" should be mentioned in the article. Cla68 (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

She has plausibly argued that the particular phrase above was not meant literally, so I don't know if that one should be included, but I have always opposed the total exclusion of the facebook postings from the article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe the source for her arguments was Jezebel, which is not a reliable source these days. That said, I'm not arguing for inclusion of the facebook postings. Rather, if we are going to mention other allegations that are not directly related to her experience and the artwork that followed, then we should ensure we don't leave them open to misinterpretation. I used the Facebook example an illustration of sensitivity to her, so we should accord the same to him. In the end, what other students accused him of doing are not relevant to her art based on what's current known.Mattnad (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We should focus on the performance art and not delve into the motivations too deeply as they implicate an innocent person in a crime. It's not necessary. --DHeyward (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Which person, what crime, and how do you know that person is innocent? --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It's most natural to read this as concern for the accused student, in which case I think it's a bit silly as the performance art, such as it was, was largely about the accusation and the inclusion of more details tends to benefit his case. Others have suggested that including more details might implicate Sulkowicz in the crime of filing a false police report, of which she was never accused, and this is why I asked the above question. I do think this is tortured logic - it can't possibly be acceptable to say that a non-notable person was the subject of an accusation, yet be unacceptable to write something from which a reader might infer that his innocence is plausible. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Fansites used to source sport statistics

I have an RFC running at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker#RfC: Does the use of self-published sources in snooker articles violate BLPSPS and SPS? but it doesn't seem to have gained much traction. Maybe I should have started it a more populated project, but the issue affects a ton of sport articles in general (not just cuesports). It is not unusual to find sport statistics in Misplaced Pages biography articles (even GA rated ones) sourced to fansites and blogs. While the information is hardly controversial (things like prize money, match results etc) it does directly relate to living people, which at face value contravenes BLPSPS. I can appreciate that people not familiar with the sport wouldn't want to address the more general points posed at the RFC, but it would be great to get some feedback on the specific BLP policy aspect in regards to sport statistics for living people. Betty Logan (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

4muses

OK this article is downright dirty and disrespectful.

As a MINE and a concerned netizen who believes in responsible posting in the face of Internet freedom, I ask for the deletion of https://en.wikipedia.org/4muses because of its satirical, misleading, and vandalized content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ydrenilvan (talk • contribs) 08:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Inserted a CSD tag - obvious spoof of Nine Muses (band) Mike1901 (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Marco Rubio

Two users have restored my deletion of an unsupported sentence from Marco Rubio. . The key phrase is simply false, for reasons I explain in the talk discussion . I would further note that the way it is written appears to violate WP:Synth. CometEncke (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI: The LA Times says "Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a GOP star and possible 2016 presidential contender, does not believe human activity is causing climate change, he said Sunday." ¶ “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it,” Rubio said on ABC's "This Week." Those are his own words and they are from a reliable source. Rubio disagrees with scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. - MrX 16:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to point out "I do not believe that human activity is causing these changes the way these scientists are portraying it" is not the same as "I do not believe that human activity is causing these changes". The article currently implies, if not outright states, that Rubio is denying any human activity is responsible, when you get down to quotes however, it is clear he gives a politician's answer that is not an outright denial. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Is disputing some scientists the same as disputing the scientific understanding as a whole? CometEncke (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Well unless he names specific scientists/research to which he objects, he *is* disputing the scientific consensus as it stands. His own words state that he disputes the extent to which human activity is responsible for climate change (the consensus is that it is significantly responsible). He is not denying human activity outright (see conv with MrX below) however which is why I feel the inclusion of the Polifact (giving their opinion on him) is misleading. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: Indeed, and I'm fine with rephrasing the sentence to more accurately reflect the words in Rubio's artful equivocation, as I proposed on the talk page. I am not fine with replacing four reliable sources with a single source and a cherry-picked quote that sounds a little too much like campaign rhetoric. - MrX 16:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

To be honest you could just lose "the website polifact" bit as the rest is accurate. Even when you look at the polifact article the sources they use to say 'he denies human activity' are still pretty ambiguous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I would be fine omitting that sentence. (last sentence, first paragraph of § Energy and environment- MrX 17:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

"Unless he names specific scientists/research to which he objects, he *is* disputing the scientific consensus as it stands." -- That is a WP:Synth, and a perfect illustration of why the policy exists. The consensus incorporates a lot of different information, and not all scientists portray it in the same way. Just to pick one example among many, has Rubio disputed that sea level is rising? The fact that it is is certainly part of the scientific consensus, and the linked article says as much. By saying that Rubio disagrees with the scientific consensus, the article give the impression that Rubio disagrees with that statement. CometEncke (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sea level rise has nothing to do with this. The issue at hand is the link between human activity and climate change. Rubio said "I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it..." Aside from this direct quote, the LA Times article makes it abundantly clear that Rubio was referring to the group "most scientists". - MrX 13:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr. X, this is not complicated. By stating that Rubio disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change, and linking to that article, the Rubio article states that he disagrees with all of it. That's simply false, and is not in any source. Sheesh. CometEncke (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Since this is apparently a difficult issue, let's break it down a bit -- the scientific consensus consists of multiple statements -- temp. is rising, sea level is rising, the rising temp. humans are causing most of it, and so forth. Rubio to my knowledge has been silent on the sea level question, agrees that temp. is rising, and disagrees that it has been proven that humans are causing most of it -- or possibly even disagrees that humans are causing most of it -- that's unclear to me. If a consensus consists of multiple pieces of information, and someone agrees with some, is silent on others, and disagrees (or partly disagrees) with yet another, it does not follow that they disagree with the whole thing. Clear? CometEncke (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not something you're meant to figure out for yourself -- it's a question of what is to be found in reliable sources on the matter. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, could you please point out where the sources say that? A direct quote? CometEncke (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

← First of all, let's be clear about the scientific consensus. Scientific opinion holds not just that climate change is occurring, but that it is driven by human activity. Rubio disputes this scientific understanding. There are innumerable sources attesting to Rubio's position; here is a subset:

• Dann, Carrie (May 12, 2014). "Rubio: Human Activity Isn't Causing Climate Change". NBC News. The title says it all, but also notes: "Rubio also said that he disputes 'the notion that some are putting out there, including scientists, that somehow there are actions we can take today that would actually have an impact on what's happening in our climate.'"
• Graham, David (February 6, 2013). "Is Marco Rubio a Scientist or Not, Man?". The Atlantic. With global warming... Rubio rejects both environmental policy solutions and the scientific consensus.
• Kaplan, Rebecca; Uchimiya, Ellen (September 1, 2015). "Where the 2016 Republican candidates stand on climate change". CBS News. In Rubio's own words: "... what they have chosen to do is take a handful of decades of research and say that this is now evidence of a longer-term trend that's directly and almost solely attributable to manmade activity. I do not agree with that."
• Kliegman, Julie (May 14, 2014). "Has Marco Rubio backtracked on climate change?". PolitiFact. Rubio consistently either avoids the link between human activity and climate change, or outright denies it.
• Gass, Henry (March 9, 2015). "Can Florida prepare for climate change without saying the words?". Christian Science Monitor. Quotes Rubio as saying "that he doesn't 'believe human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate.'"
• Lehmann, Evan (September 17, 2015). "Republican Candidates Questioned on Climate Change". Scientific American. Rubio has taken firm positions against blaming people for climbing temperatures as he appeals to conservative voters.
• Cho, Renee (October 28, 2015). "Presidential Candidates: Who Believes in Climate Change?". Scientific American. Columbia University. Rubio... believes climate change is happening, but not that it is caused by man.
• Harder, Amy; Reinhard, Beth (January 16, 2016). "Republican Presidential Field Tilts Rightward on Climate Change". Wall Street Journal. Describes "a broad consensus among scientists that human activity is increasing the Earth’s temperature, and that action is needed to soften the consequences". In contrast, states that Rubio "questioned whether climate change is man-made, and opposed potential remedies like cap-and-trade".

So not only is this well-sourced—it's probably the best-sourced item in Rubio's entire biography. I don't believe for a second that the original poster here spent any time looking for sources, because this is very well-documented. I don't see the BLP issue here; it looks more like an agenda-driven editor (using a "new" account) tendentiously disputing a well-sourced fact using specious BLP claims. In other words, welcome to election season... MastCell  20:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Hypothetically, if someone agrees with 99.99% of the scientific consensus but disagrees with .01% then it would not be fair to say simply that he disagrees with the scientific consensus. If you editors stick closely to what the sources say then I'm sure you can get closure.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that sources are key, which is why irrelevant hypothetical arguments are unproductive. MastCell  21:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't see the relevance. It appears to me that Rubio agrees with some aspects of the scientific consensus about climate change, but disagrees with others, and has not expressed any view about still others. So say so. Or be more specific about the aspects that he disagrees with. But do not paint with a broad brush to imply that he disagrees with the whole scientific consensus. Is that non-hypothetical enough?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The modern scientific understanding of climate change is not "Hey, the Earth seems to maybe be getting warmer, but people can't possibly have anything to do with it". The modern scientific understanding of climate change is that it's driven by human activity. Rubio doesn't accept this (see above sources), and thus he disputes the scientific understanding of climate change. There is some debate among climate scientists about the degree of warming that we're likely to experience, but that's not a debate that Rubio is anywhere near. His statements are waaaay outside the parameters of modern scientific understanding on the topic, as the above sources make clear. I'm not sure why it's so difficult for us to follow them in this case. MastCell  01:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Good luck with it. I've given my recommendation about how to follow the sources, and that's all I have to say about.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh

Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On 13 January, an actor was arrested in India for mimicking him. After that many IPs started editing the article. I was checking the information against the given sources, and made a few things.

I want an uninvolved editor to check if the article has been tag bombed. --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Titodutta, the more recent tags were added in this edit. It might be prudent to invite Shrikanthv to this discussion to see what they have to say about the tagging. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Informed him. --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The page looks like complete PR page , also puts across a one sided personnel refelection of events and him, did see some IP's trying to vandalise the pages. but its horribly linked to websites like youtube, flipkart.. so had tagged it as original sources. it needs some work but I think Tito can do it Shrikanthv (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

also it avoids links which are negative to the subject like this ones 1,2, 3 Shrikanthv (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• What do you mean by a "complete PR page"? --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (December 2014) - which contributors? This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject. (January 2016) - why a duplicate tag? and again which editors? This article possibly contains original research. (January 2016) -- which are original research? This article may contain improper references to self-published sources. (January 2016) - which are self-published sources? --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

kolten wong

says he lives in yogurt... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:189:4000:1D20:CB2:5FF6:8AB6:5E83 (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done The vandalism was removed. Meatsgains (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Emmanuel Lemelson

This page requires some urgent intervention as it relates to one editor's (Smalljim) dogmatic insistence in adding documentably false information about this subject to the page and removing wholesale content central to the subject's notability. I have communicated my concerns at length on the talk page here: Talk:Emmanuel_Lemelson#Significant_concerns_about_Smalljim.27s_edits. The most urgent and major issues of likely libelous content additions by editor Smalljim that I've articulated in point four of this talk page section clearly must be fixed. Secondarily, user Smalljim has completely disregarded efforts for talk page reconciliation regarding his likely libelous additions and other destructive and malicious edits and content removals and he has indicated that he is going to forge ahead with continued such changes, ignoring valid concerns raised on the talk page about both his editorial errors and demeanor.

Request: I am asking that the current, non libelous version of the article that exists (]) be maintained and that any additional proposed edits, additions or removal of content be restricted (as had been originally proposed and I thought agreed to) to the subject's talk page. Thank you. Orthodox2014 (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

From what I can see, Smalljim has been utmostly patient and been willing to discuss and explain their changes/improvements at great length. They have far more patience than me! You asked for comments on the article and several editors (including myself) agreed that the article had major problems and needed improvement. Your solution was to revert all edits back to a sandbox version of your own. So on the one hand we have a number of experienced Misplaced Pages editors who are trying to improve the article in accordance with Misplaced Pages good practise and, on the other, a single issue editor with a very evident conflict of interest who seems solely intent on promoting Emmanuel Lemelson and his hedge fund.

For the purposes of this BLP Noticeboard discussion, it would help if you could explain which bits of the article are libelous. A Public perception section (which detailed some criticisms of Lemelson) seems to have been reduced to a single sentence. Sionk (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Response: Sionk, you are a part of the urgent complaint that has been filed regarding these edits and one of the editors I have cited as being solicited by User:Smalljim to support his erroneous changes (I address briefly the history of the collaboration between the two of you and forcing edits together below on other pages). Nearly everything you say above is incorrect:

1.) User:Smalljim has not been willing to discuss or explain anything. He has reverted to his own singularly-developed sandbox version of the page, including inaccurate libelous material, and states pointedly on my talk page on January 5 when this first emerged that he has no intention of discussing with me or considering the significant errors and policy violations in his current version to which he has reverted and insisted remain untouched and unreverted. He again made the point that he has no intention of working with me in fixing his errors as recently as today (see here: , saying that he is not considering my points.

2.) You have engaged in this discussion, it appears, exclusively to side with Smalljim (as you have historically in many other work projects and edits through the years) and you clearly have not compared the versions in question that you're citing. This one of December 28, 2015 (before Smalljim's recent involvement): and this one of January 5, 2016 in which his non-controversial edits were fully incorporated and without the inaccurate, libelous material or the removal of important content: . There has been no reversion to "my" page. I don't have a page, and the one that last one that excludes these serious errors is the one referenced.

3.) You and Smalljim continue to try to force these inaccurate edits by insisting that I have a conflict, and Smalljim quickly referred this to COI, where the community agreed there is no conflict (and there isn't). However, I do have conflict concerns that I will address in greater detail about what I see as ongoing mutually supportive edits between the two of you over a long period of time.

4.) There is zero "promotional" content in this last acceptable version: .

5.) The inaccurate and likely libelous components (among other serious concerns) are spelled out in detail on the talk page here: .

WP:BLP mandates the removal of unreferenced, inaccurate and especially potentially libelous content, which clearly has been added by Smalljim. I am reverting the page to remove that inaccurate and libelous content to the last version without it. Concerns about that page (without the inaccuracies and libel) should be addressed on the talk page. I additionally have raised many questions, pointed out numerous very serious errors that both of you have either added and/or defended that have gone unanswered. I also have requested the input of subject experts from the relative Wikiprojects, which I think can be helpful.

Urgent request: I am asking that the last version without the inaccuracies and libel available here and to which I am reverting now be preserved and that proposed additions and edits be discussed and deliberated upon before they are added. The removal of the inaccuracies and libel, not necessarily my defense of this page (though it is vastly preferable in many ways) requires this reversion. Orthodox2014 (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any BLP violations (not on any of the edits you said they were on Orthodox2014 ). Smalljim seems to have been very careful about how the article was worded as well, and he's been communicating with you on your talk page very respectfully. I think it may be time for you to drop this and move on to a different article. You seem very attached to this article and it's bordering on ownership. I'm also wondering if you have a COI in this article. KoshVorlon 17:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I had a look as well, I was expecting all sorts of shenanigans given the post above, but I couldnt even find the article slanted towards a POV, let alone anything coming close to a BLP violation. Or 'libelous content'. Perhaps Orthodox can point us at exactly what they find objectionable? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Response: I did not want to duplicate the detailed entry about the inaccurate and likely libelous information here since I included a link to it right above, which I had urged be reviewed. But let me transfer the concerns here, and I encourage full review of the talk page discussion on the page.

And to try to simplify this a bit, let me focus first on the urgent (inaccurate, unreferenced, likely libelous content) and set aside the important but less urgent (wholesale removal of content central to the page, the addition of descriptions that are imprecise or inaccurate and other generally destructive edits, and the editorial demeanor of User:Smalljim.

To focus exclusively on the urgent in ascending order of urgency and complexity:

1.) In the lede sentence, Smalljim describes the subject as a "businessman" and "social commentator," neither of which are supported by any source at all anywhere. This was pointed out to him in talk discussion. But even after acknowledging that a source was needed for a vocational description, Smalljim just plowed ahead and inserted the inaccurate, unreferenced vocational descriptions anyway. He also has reworded section headers to reflect these verifiably inaccurate labels (again disregarding concerns raised on this page and disregarding also his own proclamation that every vocational label required reliable secondary sources).

2.) Smalljim has taken the liberty of inventing yet another fictional description of the subject, writing that: "His investment research and analysis has been published in national media." Again, this is totally untrue and unreferenced but it is conveniently used to support his other inaccurate statement that the subject in involved in "advertising." While it is not uncommon for mutual and hedge funds to advertise, in my 18 months of research on this subject I was unable to locate even one such advertisement. Smalljim is likely also aware of this, but (consistent with his biases and agenda to diminish the subject), he's presenting legitimate major national media coverage of the subject as paid media advertising, which it clearly isn't (Fox Business News interviews, USA Today articles multiple times, The Wall Street Journal documentary and article, New York Post multiple articles, The Street article, etc.). The vast coverage of the subject and his activist investment efforts by major media outlets (literally dozens of such articles), of course, is objective media, not paid advertising.

3.) Smalljim (either because he does not have even a rudimentary understanding of the alternative investment industry or because of his strong biases against the subject referenced above, or both) has added a severely inaccurate and deceptive paragraph that misdefines and misapplies a complex U.S. regulatory policy (JOBS Act) that defines disclosure rules guiding whether and in what ways a hedge fund can disclose its performance results (defined as the quantifiable rate of return of the respective hedge fund). It has zero applicability to the subject's media coverage that's referenced. Also in the series of these serious errors, he has used the phrase "total return," which is inaccurate and replaced my correct definition of the returns as "net returns" (big difference).

Proposed short term step: There exists a January 6 version here before the addition of the inaccurate/libelous content to which the article can be quickly reverted. I'm asking that this be done (nothing in this version includes any fact that is in contention). While it's actually a very good version (in my view), I'm not defending that version as being without opportunity for improvement. To this end, I have solicited more expert editor input in several work groups with editors likely to have at least some base knowledge of the alternative investing field. This is important because I have been reverting egregious errors by the two or so other editors engaged on the page right now, who have written paragraphs about the subject owning a stock that the reference indicated he clearly had shorted, misapplying terms, and miscommunicating returns, etc. Thanks. Orthodox2014 (talk) 00:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Absolutely not!, about the "short term step". The #1 libel complained about is that Lemelson was called a businessman? C'mon, be real.
• Misplaced Pages editors are living persons too, and over-the-top, ridiculous claims of "libel" etc. are themselves libelous. The ranting accusations above and at the Talk page are unacceptable. I was invited by Orthodox2014 to participate in the discussion, and also contributed time and effort attempting to assist them. Now the editor is forum-shopping, i suppose. The editor is past the point where AGF still applies. The only libel or personal attacks in any of this are by this editor against Smalljim and other editors. I probably would support a topic ban at this point. --doncram 05:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, do we actually need sources for 'businessman' when their primary notability is in the world of business? BLP dictates any contentious fact has to be removed unless reliably sourced, but it would be like not describing Andre Agassi as a sportsman despite their tennis success. I can see why someone who has become a religious personage might object to being described as a 'businessman' - but since he is doing both concurrently, I dont see how it is not accurate. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Response: If the subject's primary notability in the world is as a "businessman," wouldn't he be referred to that way at least once in the over 150 references? He's been repeatedly referred to in media as an "activist". Is activist and businessman the same thing? How many "activist investors" have the term "businessman" in their profile? How many "businessmen" on Misplaced Pages are referred to as "activist investors"? The answer in both cases is none for a reason. So the more appropriate analogy would be like describing Andre Agassi as a famous soccer player, as opposed to a famous tennis player (after all, they're all professional athletes, so what's the difference?). In another example, the term "social commentator" has been added though it too cannot be found in any reference.

But these are just obvious examples of the problems with the editing that is taking place and it's not the content that I was referring to when I said "nearly libelous." The comment I was referring to is the very serious and false edits suggesting that he's advertising his fund when he's not as well as the determined effort to include contentious material (see section of Wall Street Journal article, for instance) in an effort to make the subject look bad and which is clearly in violation of WP:BLP and WP:Primary. Smalljim has stated openly and repeatedly that the objective of his edits is not to be neutral but diminutive. I hope that you and other editors will take the time to carefully review the talk page discussion, including the very valid points I raise and which Smalljim refuses to answer.

I would like to give you another example where just today Smalljim has edited a sentence which was perfectly well-written and cited the source accurately. See this edit change here: . In another example, he refers to the fund as "small," managing "around $20 million." My question would be how, in any way, is that encyclopedic, notable or not POV. I could find no biographies of hedge fund managers that speak in the body of the profile to the size of the funds they manage, let alone an editor's personal commentary on whether that was considered large or small. Continuing to state that the subject is advertising the fund under the provisions of the JOBS Act is certainly libelous because it is patently false.

Smalljim has now started to make similar changes to the Lemelson Capital Management page. In accordance with his stated his goals, he has been removing what is truly notable about the subject and, presuming he carries forward the approach he's taken to the other page, replace it with diminutive, unencyclopedic facts and patently false information.

I would ask this question: Why is Smalljim so dogged about editing these pages, which were well researched and accurate? No other editor has made contributions to the page yet. I did not invite Doncram to just get involve on the talk page. I invited him to actually get involved with actively editing the page and to get intimately familiar with the references. To date, no one other than Smalljim has made any substantive edits to the page,so now the page is effectively a page managed by Smalljim, who has not been shy in stating his POV on the subject. If AGF did not apply to me, why would I would be inviting other editors I do not know to work on the page? We know that the editors who have been supporting Smalljim have worked together often and over a long period of time on other pages, whereas my invitations are objective, impersonal and open to everyone. My invitation stands. I hope that Doncram or other editors will take the time to carefully and intimately get involved with authoring this BLP. As you have seen, I have withdrawn from editing the page for several days now while Smalljim proceeds forward with inaccurate and diminutive edits. I hope you take me up on my invitation to get involved with this subject. Orthodox2014 (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Guthrie vs. Elliott

Guthrie vs. Elliott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a BLP subject complaint that I was contacted with. I've been keeping right away from anything even slightly Gamergate controversy-related on Misplaced Pages myself (I'm active on RationalWiki on the subject and have been subject to doxxing attacks and threats from GG advocates myself), but considered a BLP subject complaint should be passed on for other experienced eyes.

The complaint is that it appears to be an article documenting a legal case backed with many RSes, but is actually an attack piece on Guthrie, considerably ginned-up. Guthrie has been subjected to threats and harassment over the case. The subject's article complaints are:

• The title is not the name of the case, but a synthesis bringing the name of the subject into the title: the case name is R. v. Gregory Alan Elliott, and Guthrie vs. Elliott is nowhere the official name. This makes it appear as though Guthrie personally decided to take legal action against the defendant. Only the official citation should be there.
• The sources are from news outlets, but a lot of the claims are opinion pieces being used to make claims of facts.
• "Wanting to cause real-life consequences for Spurr's online activity, she contacted news organizations and potential employers in his hometown." The latter part of this sentence is false; Guthrie did not contact potential employers. A piece by Sarah Ratchford (referenced later in the article) points this out.
• "However it has been confirmed by both Guthrie and the investigating officer that "there’s no allegation that Elliott ever made sexual comments to Guthrie or the other two complainants in the case, or that he even threatened any of them" - neither sexual comments nor threats are a requirement to prosecute someone for criminal harassment, yet this statement insinuates that a lack of sexual comments and threats somehow supports Elliott's side of the case.
• "After Guthrie blocked him on Twitter, he continued tweeting both political criticism and has been accused of making personal insults towards her and other local feminists." - Why is the political criticism framed as 100% verified fact but the personal insults are framed as an "accusation"? This seems like bias. All of Elliott's tweets to Guthrie are publicly available and verifiable.
• "Guthrie and some of her associates" - The use of a term like "associates" implies some sort of conspiracy on Guthrie's part.

As I said I'm leaving this alone past passing on the complaint, so have no further useful detail to add - David Gerard (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ariel Fernandez

Defamatory content has been added today to the Misplaced Pages biography of Ariel Fernandez as per https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ariel_Fernandez&diff=700461175&oldid=694589588

This highly controversial information had already been deemed inappropriate for a BLP and rejected on numerous occassions (see Ariel Fernandez talk page). The edits were ferociously spearheaded by editor Molevol1234 who has written more than 70 contributions to Misplaced Pages, all directed at destroying the subject and also revaling a serious COI (see Talk page). Molevol1234 is a person already identified and obsessed with destroying the reputation of the subject, as per latest discussions in Talk page. Furthermore, THIS EDIT PROPOSAL HAS ALREADY BEEN REJECTED SEVERAL TIMES, as shown in the Talk page and its archives. Yet, this time around it has been incorporated WITHOUT EVEN REACHING ANY CONSENSUS.

Not only this action is strictly forbidden by Misplaced Pages policies and bylaws on BLPs, but the content of the addition is completely non notable, referring to three papers challenged years ago, while in fact no paper by the subject has ever been rejected based on proven wrongdoing or invalid data. No source to justify notability was ever provided.

Adding the Misplaced Pages imprimatur to such nonsense by publishing this material constitutes defamation as it suggests wrogdoing on behalf of the subject or a serious iaaue that has never been proven or established.

This addition is also ilegal as per the rules and policies of Misplaced Pages BLP:SPS, since the secondary source for the accusations is the self published blog Retraction Watch. The blog is published by A Marcus and I Oransky who also contribute to the blog and allow any contributor to say whatever they want. It is well known that such self published sources are strictly forbidden in BLPs.

190.195.2.239 (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• The SPI related to this article makes for some very interesting reading... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• • You keep pulling this all the time to avoid addressing the issues at stake here. You had the temerity to defame the subject, including controversial matter without consensus, violating Misplaced Pages policy and includig a proposal already rejected by Misplaced Pages numerous times. 190.195.2.239 (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Allthefoxes:: As you have rightly noted, the last paragraph in Career section of this BLP needs to be removed due to lack of consensus. In addition the paragraph violates Misplaced Pages policy for the following reasons: a) The years-old challenges to research papers (expressions of concern) is not proven to be a notable topic and there is no valid secondary source that would justify their inclusion. All papers by Ariel Fernandez remain perfectly valid unless someone proves that they contain invalid data. There has never been evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of Fernandez or his group that would invalidate any of his papers or lead to retraction. b) Inclusion of a paragraph derogatory to a subject of a BLP requires extensive consensus. This was never reached. c) The use of self published sources like the self-published blog Retraction Watch is strictly forbidden by Misplaced Pages policy on BLPs as per BLP:SPS. This blog is evidently self-published because it is published by A Marcus and I Oransky, who also contribute to the blog, claiming to be retraction experts. d) The person who spearheaded this deprecation has a COI with the subject as extensively discussed in the Talk page and archives. e) The proposal to include the derogatory paragraph has been rejected 4 (FOUR) times already as noted in TALK page. Thanks much for your attention. S&T Natl Res Council.201.254.123.189 (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

IP editor, please do not pull me into drama. I simply declined the SPER since there did not seem to be any amount of consensus on the edit. I apprciate your passion on the issue, but I have no definite interest in helping resolve this dispute at the time. This seems to be a content dispute more than anything else. --allthefoxes 19:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Also noting that there is some serious possible SOCKing going on here. Not cool. --allthefoxes 19:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

There are some issues with balance and consensus in the article, which mainly persist because of proliferation of socks. Retraction Watch, the highest profile information source in the area is used, but never as the single source for a fact. We continue to be open to new reliable sources on the subject from the socks or anyone else. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Retraction Watch is no high profile nothing. It is an indiscriminate blog run by nobodies and losers seeking recognition by taking shots at working scientists while cowardly hiding and talking about things they know nothing about. As a self published source IT IS A STRICTLY FORBIDDEN SOURCE AT WIKIPEDIA AS PER BLP:SPS.186.138.183.140 (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

That post violates our WP:BLP policy. Ironic, no? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Jason Scott case

Appears to be a BLP. The following edit seems a bit troublesome in my opinion:

Not a BLP issue. CAN is not a living person. Restoring a reversion to false statements not supported by the most detailed RSs

As the case involves a living person, and the "CAN" in this article is described as being primarily Rick Alan Ross elsewhere, it might appear that the claims about CAN here also are (as they pertain to a specific named individual elsewhere in this BLP) also pertain here to a specific individual. Do they do so? Collect (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Just saw this -- CAN was a corporation. ROSS is not CAN. Ross was not founder, officer, employee, nor shareholder of CAN. Ross is a deprogramming contractor who was co-defendant with CAN in the Jason Scott case. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The article makes clear the problem - and alas I do not specialize in Scientology connections. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means, but it might imply that collect (talk · contribs) is abandoning the issue he/she raised? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The people specifically involved as anyone reading the article can tell are specific living persons - including Jason Scott, Ted Patrick, Patricia Ryan, Mike Farrell and Rick Alan Ross. Are you somehow saying that this "Jason Scott case" is not covered by the policy and that WP:BLP does not apply? I further note the claim that CAN deliberately squandered its insurance monies and thus became bankrupt is SYNTH as well - perhaps Sfarney does not know who those living persons are? "Handbook states that exit counsellors or deprogrammers either made donations themselves, or had client families make donations to the "Old CAN", " clearly links Ross as a living person to the "old CAN" so there is a direct connection. Note the "church of Scientology" was directly involved in all aspects of the litigation and the bankruptcy proceedings - and was the primary opponent of reorganization, possibly so that it could acquire the organization assets and website for little or no cost. David Miscavige is quoted as saying ". I think if you interviewed a neo-Nazi and asked them to talk about the Jews, you would get a similar result to what you have here." and I rather think the CoS maintains that position to this day. Sorry Sfarney - I fear that the CoS specific interest in presenting the "old CAN" is the worst possible light is in conflict with the non-negotiable WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies. I find Rick Alan Ross has a tendency to post too often, but he does not merit this sort of response either. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The statement that CAN used the insurance money on the appeal rather than paying the judgment is directly from the James R. Lewis source, and the source is on line for anyone to see. Apparently, you accuse me of SYNTH without reading the source. Miscavich has little to do with this discussion, and your quote is not in the article or the argument -- it's just irrelevant. Let's please return to the article and the sources at hand. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Reference note copied from reverted edit for ease of uninvolved reviewers. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

References

1. Lewis, James R. (2009-02-09). Scientology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199887118.

Is not Schupe, in the very book and article you cite, the same author who apparently misstated the outcome of the Ross criminal trial as a 'hung jury' rather than an acquittal? He is a prolific author on this subject but I worry about his fact checking and accuracy. Have any other authors made this statement? Jbh 21:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

As noted in the reference, the source is Lewis, not Schupe. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I have that book, it is edited by Lewis. The chapter you are pulling the quote from is The Nature of New Religious Movements - Anti-cult "Culture War" in Microcosm: The Church of Scientology versus the Cult Awareness Network by Anson Shupe. This should have been obvious from reading the entire chapter to insure you understood the context of the quotes you were using before inserting it into a BLP. Jbh 22:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

1. The Cult Awareness Network was a corporation, not a living person, and it is defunct -- bankrupt. Policies about living persons are not applicable to statements about non-living defunct corporations. Please refrain from this misapplication of Wiki policy.
2. The volume is edited by Lewis, indicating that Lewis reviewed and validated the text before including it. If you consider Shupe is invalid as a source, please take your concerns to WP:RS. Until we get a determination from that forum, Lewis/Schupe is a credited RS. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Bias in favor of Cult Awareness Network and Deprogrammers -- Rick (Alan) Ross

In the last 24 hours, two of my careful edits to the Cult Awareness Network and Rick Alan Ross pages have been reverted, allegedly on BLP grounds. Both edits are supported by RS. In the CAN case, the edits have nothing to do with living persons, yet BLP is the reason given for the reversions. Uncomfortable truth is still truth, the meat and potatoes of Misplaced Pages when well supported with RS. These are the two edits: Rick Alan Ross and Cult Awareness Network. I seek here a wider circle of opinion than the 3 or 4 regulars on those pages, who object to the inconvenient truth on those subjects. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is discussion between the editors on the edits: and . Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not specialize in Scientology connected articles. Collect (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

A dispute has arisen on the page concerning Ross's own words (diff is linked). I have posted Ross's own words concerning his brainwashing theory of cults from his own published essay, hosted now on his own web page. Other editors, regulars to that article, delete it. Recently, Ronz (talk · contribs) seems to state that the material is defamatory. I do not agree that quoting a sufficient body of text of a person's own words, in its own context, can be defamatory -- except to the degree that the person defames himself. The rebuttal cites I provide in that diff showing Ross's words are pseudoscience are not the best cites and I have better now. But the same passage alone was posted on 17-18 Jan, without the rebutting cites, and it was reverted then. Those editors have threatened me three times with sanctions if I post the material: plus the talk page link above. Please, can we get a wider circle of editors to offer opinions on this subject rather than permitting the edit war to continue? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Clue When only one editor wishes to post what is, to say the least, contentious material in a BLP, and does not follow the procedures suggested in WP:CONSENSUS and multiple other editors remove the edits, it is a teensy bit possible that he is not hearing what anyone else is saying. Maybe. Collect (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • From the topic immediately above this one, it is evident those other editors are not reading the sources with careful regard. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

David L. Jones

David L. Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article is currently POV-tagged (since 10-Jan-2016), and either the whole article or various sections have been POV-tagged for the better part of the last three months, through a series of removals after a period, and replacement. No specific, actionable details have been given to my satisfaction, in edit summaries or in Talk.

The edit summary for the current tag reads: "no consensus for most of content, in violation of BLP", and there is no discussion follow-up (requests for specifics were made in Talk).

Please give the article and references a look - it's not lengthy - and comment on any apparent neutrality issues, general or BLP-specific, that you may find. Thanks! --Tsavage (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a ongoing dispute from October: The problem is that poor, promotional sources have been used to pad the article. Most of the talk page is about the problems.

The DRN discussions were closed as failed Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_127#Talk:David_L._Jones and the resultant RfC has yet to be closed Talk:David_L._Jones#RFC:_Inclusion_of_draft_sections. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Ronz: Please allow outside editors to take a clean look: a fresh perspective is often the best way to resolve a dispute, as opposed to importing it wholesale. The DRN discussion and four simultaneous current RfCs (over 30 days with little participation) do not mention or address neutrality and the POV tag.

For previous discussion/background, there are several dedicated sections, like "Reason for the Neutrality tag?," on the Talk page beginning last Oct, , , , , , , , none of which give more explanation than, essentially, "violates BLP." However, I think a fresh look would be the most helpful. --Tsavage (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad that you now want others to be involved.

I provided some pertinent background. Sorry you don't like that.

You misrepresent the situation. That's inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Digitalism (band)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Digitalism (band)#Unsourced material. An editor is repeatedly adding unsourced and poorly sourced material to the Digitalism (band) article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: The bigger issues look to be WP:COPYVIO and WP:COI. As an account with a company username making copyvio promotional edits to a client's page, this seems like a block is in order. Meanwhile, I've restored the last version prior to the user began and left a message on the talk page. — Rhododendrites \\ 00:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Kai Ryssdal

Hey --

Can someone tell me how to get my *actual headshot on this article, instead of this random picture that someone put there?

Thanks.

Kai— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.145.217.65 (talk • contribs)

If you own the copyright to the image that you would like to be used in the article please see WP:DCM.--ukexpat (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Carl Raschke & Swarming New User Accounts

Hey folks. Our Carl Raschke article has been swarming with new user accounts intent on turning the article into a puff piece by deleting material relating to what Raschke is by far best known—Raschke's role in capitalizing on and fueling the Satanic ritual abuse moral panic of the late 1980s and 1990s (his work notably likely influencing convictions such as the now free West Memphis Three). I'll copy and paste from these talk pages about these accounts here to give you an idea of what's going on:

• Carlraschke (talk · contribs)—who has repeatedly claimed to be Raschke (, as an example)
• LH Chicago (talk · contribs)—aggressively deleted reference to an interview with Raschke because the above user claimed he never gave it (), Gateofhorn claims is a friend of Raschke's ()
• Gateofhorn (talk · contribs)—claims to be a friend of LH Chicago ()
• Melatha (talk · contribs)
• Duikelmaan (talk · contribs)—who has repeatedly outright deleted anything perceived as critical of Raschke (, , ), behavior encouraged by Melatha (), editor subsequently went on to vandalize my user page (, , before being blocked for 48 hours for harassment ()
• User6915 (talk · contribs)
• Scholarbyday (talk · contribs)

Almost every user here has resorted to personal attacks against those involved in the article and they seem to tag team removing less than flattering information about Raschke and the Satanic panic. What can be done about this swarm of new users apparently connected to the subject? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

A request for page protection has been made. That should help with the SPAs. --Ronz (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You need to check the Talk pages and edit history. Everything bloodofox says above is pretty much a lie. For example, "Almost every user has resorted to personal attacks against those involved in the article." FACT: one user, LH_Chicago, got involved in personal attacks, and the other user Gateofhorn seems to have responded to personal attacks on her, which he is now calling personal attacks on him. Second example.bloodofox writes that user Melatha "encouraged" bad behavior of another user. Her is what Melatha actually said: I presume you are a new user. A bot reverted most of your last edit because you took out a whole section which it identified as "vandalism". You can always revert what the bot did in the View History of this page. You need to post your objections on the Talk Page for the article in question. You can also visit the Contact page to complain about the obvious bias and violation of policy by bloodofox, since many others have also complained. That is advice on how to edit properly, not encourage "bad behavior." bloodofox states that I helped put in jail an innocent person caught up in a moral panic. That is a libel and a lie. I did not testify in the West Memphis trial, nor was I ever asked or consulted about it. I see no evidence that even my published views on the actual topic of satanism were actually used to convict anyone. I have always been in court as a defense witness, and those cases were prior to the publication of PAINTED BLACK, which I was asked by the publisher to write in order to bring a scholarly perspective on an already heated controversy. I therefore request that Bloodofox be banned from editing my page and that my work and statements be given the proper weight, not the disproportionate and exaggerated weight and distorted representations Bloodofox is employing to conduct this "smear" against me. If you check the edits, he has reverted every single edit on the satanist controversy, even mildly clarifying ones (which he now calls "flattering", from a variety of edits and then claiming that they have been vandalizing his work or are involved in conflicts of interest. This is like the proverbial kid who shoots his parents, then claims leniency because he is an orphan. It is clear that he is ruthlessly and relentlessly misusing Misplaced Pages's policies to promote a single agenda, and Misplaced Pages seems to go along with everything he does or claims. I do not reject the claim that the reception of Painted Black was largely negative among certain scholars, but he is claiming that is what I am primarily known for, which is absurd, and even there he is allowed to make that claim without evidence. Carlraschke (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)carlraschke. BTW I am who I say I am. You can verify that at my email address which is on my website at www.carlraschke.com Carlraschke (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)carlraschke.

BTW, I myself was the one who put in the request for page protection -- against the edits of Bloodofox, which was not done. Carlraschke (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)carlraschke

Regarding Raschke's work and media attention around the West Memphis Three, see Pike, Sarah M. 2012. "Wicca in the News" in Winston, Diane (editor). The Oxford Handbook of Religion and the American News Media, pp. 289–303. Oxford University Press USA. (). The "defense" the user account refers to includes cases such as this one. Other cases exist but I haven't found record of them yet. As for everything else, the diffs speak for themselves. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You haven't found them, because they don't exist. BTW I checked the Sarah Pike account you source. It says absolutely nothing about anyone in the trial even citing me. It talks about "reporters who covered the trial" interviewing local kids apart from the trial, one of whom mentioned me. That doesn't even come close to an example of my contributing to a conviction in a trial. Can you really seriously defend that ridiculous distortion of what even your own reputed "source" says. Here is the link: https://books.google.com/books?id=MCCja27G0AAC&pg=PA290&lpg=PA290&dq=west+memphis+three+raschke&source=bl&ots=JSP2vdXQdC&sig=Su6mXhs9FhXNOtLDrc0whZpKdnU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP1eG46rfKAhWJsIMKHW2GB5MQ6AEIPzAI#v=onepage&q=Raschke&f=false.

Carlraschke (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)carlraschke

You'll note that I in fact provide a link to the source in my comment above. The article body citing it says "In an article on Wicca and media for the Oxford Handbook of Religion and the News Media (2012), scholar Sarah M. Pike describes how a media report during the trial for the West Memphis Three "failed to consult experts on Wicca and Satanism" but rather referred to material by Raschke, who she describes as a "widely discredited 'Satanism expert'", which is indeed an accurate reflection of the source. Beyond this, Painted Black is widely cited as a having helped fuel the Satanic ritual abuse moral panic (which is exactly the moral panic that led to the ridiculous conviction of the West Memphis Three, and thus my comment). :bloodofox: (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Franklin Graham

Franklin Graham

I have noted this problem on the "Talk Page" to the article, but am posting it here as well as I am uncertain of how one best proceeds in such matters,

The article on Franklin Graham states: "In the August 30, 2010 issue of the Time magazine, "Does America Hate Islam?" Graham reportedly said that Islam..."

Shouldn't there be an actual citation instead of a second-hand source here (making Misplaced Pages into a third-hand source)? How can anyone check to see if this quotation is (a) accurate and (b) recounted in its proper context?

I raise this issue because Misplaced Pages's own guidelines state that "Contentious material about living persons that is ... poorly sourced must be removed immediately."

NicholasNotabene (talk) 05:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Context is critical for all quotations -- too often writers of op-ed and editorial commentary use the "snippet quote" system which can easily be misused. And far too often, are. Collect (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding how to address LPs with controversial views

I was just reading our Bill Maher article, and I noticed that it cites his opinions of various religions he has never studied in a formal capacity matter-of-factly, without mentioning that other people disagree. This seems problematic to me -- is there some reason for it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Casually, without argument, I suggest the article is about Maher and his opinions, rather than the substance of his opinions. Many others may disagree with his opinions, but the truth, falsity, or otherwise of his opinions is not the subject of the article. Does that help? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah... I guess you're right. Thanks! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

David Wain

There is no source on the death of his wife. Also she posted on Twitter under an hour ago (https://twitter.com/zandywithaz) so I think that might be erroneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:C580:A200:106A:418F:F4C3:A156 (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This has been fixed (by another editor) as unsourced. Eagleash (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Sascha Dhillon

--Tofu68 (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC) Hi, I'm writing on behalf of Sascha Dhillion- He has asked me to find out how to completely remove the page about him on Misplaced Pages, can anyone advise on the best way to accomplish that? many thanks.

• Hi, Tofu68 (talk · contribs), it looks like it will need to be nominated for deletion. I'm neutral about whether it should be deleted, but I can nominate it for you if you need it done. See our policy at WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE --Jahaza (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

--Tofu68 (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC) Thanks Jahaza - Yes it would be great if you could nominate it for deletion. I'm new to all this and not sure of the correct procedure. Sascha Dhillion is very keen NOT to have a Misplaced Pages page. Seems fair enough as he's not a public figure. Any advice on how to accomplish this would be gratefully received.

Nadeem_Hassan

Poorly sourced biography of an unknown person.

Hassan may or may not be notable as a person through his work, but there is little or nothing in the article to demonstrate this. The article is more about the legal case which is a different matter. The article could possibly be re-titled to reflect this, but still may not be notable as there are probably many other similar cases, although there are sources included in the article. Eagleash (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hasan is known for his "residency status", not the work he has done in Gastroenterology, which is reflected in the article. More reliable sources would be helpful for verification but the notable content is sourced. I think leaving the page name would be best because he was the only individual involved. Meatsgains (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Peter Gudo

• Peter P. Gudo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has very few page watchers and, unfortunately, I'm one of them. It is subject to periodic edits by users who know the subject and attempt to add promotional, poorly sourced material to the article. The latest example is Babuchocrew, whom I suspect is related to Babudo (who edited last in March 2015).

The article was deleted in February 2013 per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Peter P. Gudo but was recreated subsequently by one of the COI accounts. I tagged it as a G11 but it was declined. I assume but don't remember that there were sufficient differences between the deleted page and the recreated page not to tag it as a G4. For some reason, there is no notation of the deletion on the article's Talk page.

I don't know if Gudo is notable enough to send it to AfD again. Not one of the films he's participated in has an article on Misplaced Pages. Indeed, there's almost no real wikilinks in the entire article. Even with my revert, six of the ten references are to IMDb.

I have no interest in opening a discussion with a user or users whose only interest is promotional, but I also am limited as to how many times I can revert.

Perhaps someone here can take a look at it and nominate it or improve it if they believe it deserves an article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Bbb23, is there credible reason to think G4 isn't an appropriate rationale? 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Why do you want to make me work? :-) I looked at the January 2013 version, which was the last version before it was deleted in February. It's different but not much better. It has a wikilinked film, The Librarians (film), and it says that Gudo was the screenwriter for it. However, according to IMDb, he was not. It has other errors of fact, and if you look at Gudo's IMDb page, he hasn't done much of anything notable. The article was speedy deleted again in June 2013 per G4, but it's survived since then. I guess I should have tagged it as a G4 instead of a G11. Much too long ago for me to remember whether it was my mistake or intentional.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No desire to add to your workload. I was just thinking that unless there was good reason to think it had undergone a major rewrite in this incarnation, I'd go ahead and G4 it myself. Otherwise a second AfD seems like the way to go. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Given my history, I don't feel comfortable deleting it myself. I feel a little more comfortable about tagging it with G4, but the most cautious thing to do is let the community decide (again): Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Peter P. Gudo (2nd nomination)‎. Thanks for nudging me.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Arthur D. Collins, Jr.

• Arthur D. Collins, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article has functioned as a poorly sourced press release for many years, possibly with some copyright issues. More eyes on this would be appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like there are copyright issues with some of the photos.--Jahaza (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yi Jianlian birthdate

Yi Jianlian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I don't have a horse in this race, but I ran across an argument about the subject's birthdate. It's sourced, but are those adequate? Doug Weller talk 19:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm only seeing speculation and inaccessible sources which I assume all verify the current information, 1984. Some translations and quotes on the talk page would help. If there are contradictory sources of the same level of quality, then I'd favor leaving them out. --Ronz (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's leave the current DOB until a source confirming a different date is provided. Meatsgains (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution