Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SiameseTurtle (talk | contribs) at 00:55, 29 July 2016 (→List of oldest living people). 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

Bethlehem Shoals

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

Image should be removed and page deleted because it has been subject to repeated vandalism and image has been used in threatening messages.

VerminTax (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)VerminTax— Preceding unsigned comment added by VerminTax (talk • contribs) 14:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• @VerminTax: Are you talking about the image being used in off Misplaced Pages harassment? If that's the case then there's not much that we on Misplaced Pages can do about that, although you can contact the WMF at info-enwikimedia.org about this. I need to warn you that the page might not be deleted unless it can be shown that Shoals would fail notability guidelines or that he himself wants the page gone and that its removal would not adversely effect Misplaced Pages overly much. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• @TokyoGirl79: I have spoken to subject and asked him to email Misplaced Pages directly. There is also very little reason to consider him "notable"—he is not a full-time writer and only occasionally publishes—and at this point is "notable" mainly because of the controversy mentioned on the page. It's unclear to him (and me) what purpose it serves to have a page for a minor figure when it will serve as little more than a target for harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerminTax (talk • contribs) 15:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
• @VerminTax: Has he emailed Misplaced Pages yet? That's one of the biggest things he'd need to do. I found enough via a search to where he could generally pass notability guidelines, so we'd really need confirmation from Shoals that he wants the page removed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• @TokyoGirl79:Yeah, he emailed them over the weekend but hasn't gotten any response yet.
• @VerminTax: Cool - I think I might start up the AfD now as a technical move. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• I've started it here. Hopefully it'll go through AfD quietly. If he wants to weigh in on the AfD he can and that might help show that he endorses its deletion, however since the whole Twitter thing was so recent I can't guarantee that it won't end badly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Kim Dae-Eun

Kim Dae-eun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A user notified a discussion board that he changed the article for Olympic Gymnast Kim Dae-Eun by including a few sentences talking about how the user felt the gymnast was robbed of a gold medal in 2004. No source was given to why he felt this way, only the term "knowledgeable gymnastics fans will know". This has no place in the Misplaced Pages article and I've removed those sentences a few times, and the other user continues to add them back in. The editing for this page needs to be closed so this doesn't continue to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguin888 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Penguin888: Thank you for your vigilance Penguin888, it's because of editors like yourself that we can provide accurate encyclopedic on BLP subjects. I can see that you've had to revert additions of this information twice, is that correct? If so, it may not yet be at a level to warrant the use of article protection, however if it continues you may wish to make a request at Requests for Page Protection or notify us here -- samtar 17:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: Yes it was twice! I've gotten in trouble in the past for continuing to reverse changes to articles without bringing it up anywhere before so I just wanted to bring it up as soon as I could here! I'll keep an eye on the article and if it keeps happening I'll do what you say to do! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguin888 (talk • contribs)

@Penguin888: bear in mind that although you may be reverting unreferenced additions this is not a reason to edit war or break the three revert rule. On second thoughts you may be better taking the editor to the edit warring noticeboard now -- samtar 17:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Samtar: The user has edited the page for the third time, I tried completing the form at the Edit Warring Noticeboard like you have said but am unsure if I did it correctly. Penguin888 (talk

@Penguin888: I saw the report, and although you didn't get it quite right the editor has been blocked. Leaving you a message on your talk page -- samtar 08:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. It might also be useful to keep an eye on the IP user Special:Contributions/184.144.40.116 who seems to be the same editor editing when logged out (very similar patterns of behaviour). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones: Thanks for that, I've watchlisted the article but hopefully it'll die down soon enough -- samtar 11:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Art Rascon

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

Cited sources have been challenged regarding the inclusion of national awards won by former CBS news correspondent Art Rascon whose work has appeared nationally on the CBS Evening News with Dan Rather as well as 48 Hours. Ca2james reverted my edits saying the cited sources are not independent sources per this diff. I'm of the opinion the cited sources are compliant with WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS. Following are the sources: CBS News dating back to 1998, an alumni bio by College of Fine Arts and Communications BYU, a bio by KTRK-ABC, and the Emmy nomination announcement published by The National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. WP:BLP states "Misplaced Pages's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed." The sources cited do indeed meet V requirements and are inline with BLP policy but I think Ca2james may be confusing GNG independent sources requirement with V considering there is an AfD in progress for this BLP as well. I would appreciate further validation of the sources cited as being in compliance with . Thx 18:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually I reverted most mentions of him winning national awards because there's no independent confirmation that he won those awards (which is not the same thing as an independent source). The only place those awards is mentioned is in bios that, since they all read the same with the same syntax and language, have all been written by him, so they're primary sources (which are also not the same thing as independent sources). I reverted another mention because the source didn't indicate it was a national award. It's better to err on the side of caution for blps, I thought. Ca2james (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The sources that mention the awards are RS. You are being disruptive by reverting properly sourced material. Your comment about erring on the side of caution further proves you are not familiar with the PAGs. I highly recommend that you read BLPN, RS and V before you revert another edit from that article. 04:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Even if they were primary that would not be a problem for the info cited. You wouldnt use non-independant sources to demonstrate/satisfy notability (so in an AFD they would hold little weight) but you can within the constraints of V, BLP, RS etc use them in the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I see: even if a statement might be inaccurate, if there's no other source contradicting the statement, inaccuracy is not a reason to remove the statement. Please note that of the three removal edits, one was to change "he won national and local awards" to "he won awards". The other two were to remove similar modifiers that were added by editors and are not in the sources. For example, the sources say that he's won emmy's (unspecified) and a Murrow award, but none of the sources (listed above) specify whether these were national/regional/local level awards, and there are these different levels for both. So I removed those modifiers too . What I'm saying is that I understand that my edit summaries were unjustified but that removal of the text wasn't necessarily unjustified. Ca2james (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, they were cited to sources - in the CBS source the reference to the "national ERM Award" for Hurricane Opal was near the bottom of the article - you may have simply overlooked it. I've added more. Keep in mind that it's not our job to prove the secondary sources are telling the truth - our job is verifiability of what we include in the article, and if the material is challenged or likely to be challenged, we include inline citations; if it's controversial or derogatory material about a BLP we have to cite high quality sources in an inline citation. Either way, we are not obligated to go searching for primary sources in order to validate material cited in secondary or third party sources. Unfortunately, with some of the early national award sites dating back to the 90s, including the earlier version of the Edward R. Murrow site, they have been replaced with updated sites on different servers, so their award recipient lists have been archived or buried in the cloud somewhere. We have a few on WP. The same applies to articles that were written about those awards and recipients. All we have to go on at this point are the few secondary sources we can find. When notability is as obvious as it is with Art Rascon, we can apply common sense and IAR when making notability determinations. 01:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Perhaps unsurprisingly the Debbie Wasserman Schultz article is being turned into a political hit piece , , a couple of agenda driven WP:SPAs. The info being added violates DUE WEIGHT, is poorly sourced and neither editor has bothered to get any kind of consensus for conclusion. One of them, D.Creish, has made BLP violations on related articles as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The second edit fits your description, but the first sounds like fairly factual reporting. It is sourced to the NYT. One hardly needs to get a consensus to report that someone has resigned their position.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The first one is actually not that big of a deal, except for the way it's phrased ("emails that proved") and yes, of course it should be mentioned that she resigned. The other two are the big problem here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that "proved" is probably too strong.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Koko Jones

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

An IP made two edits today (diff) that made certain changes regarding gender identification of the subject. The IP did not add any new sources, so I reverted. However, out of concern that the IP might be right, I'm bringing it here to get more eyes on the situation and see if more sources can be found on Jones. (If there's a WikiProject better equipped to handle these types of issues, let me know so I can direct the situation there.) —C.Fred (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

C.Fred, IMO you were right to revert. The IP also removed reliable sources that illustrate that Koko as her common name. She's referred to by feminine pronouns in reliable sources and this appears to be her personal preference, and those are the things we're supposed to go by. Maybe the lead should say "Koko Jones (born Kevin Jones)", but I don't know. Definitely shouldn't say "Kevin Koko Jones", like the IP put. "Kevin Jones" as her birth name is in the infobox. Usually I think it might be in both places, but I'm not sure, so I'll let other people weigh in on that. —PermStrump(talk) 23:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Dianne Feinstein

There's been a fair amount of (now archived) discussion of Dianne Feinstein's religion on her talk page. The following things seem to me to be true:

1) Many non-Misplaced Pages websites claim Feinstein is Jewish. 2) Clear statements on this from Feinstein herself seem somewhat hard to come by. I've seen a couple different people claim (without sources) that she has said different things at different times in her life, and I can't establish what things she's said most recently. 3) It seems likely the apparently-reliable sources mentioned in (1) are simply assuming she identifies as Jewish because her father was Jewish.

Absent better sources, I think there's a strong case for removing any references to Sen. Feinstein's religion (as opposed to that of farious family members) from Misplaced Pages immediately, pending someone finding a better source. This seems to be what WP:BLP demands in this case ("Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.") But I'd like input from more experienced editors. --Chris Hallquist (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. WP:EGRS, which is for categories, says to only list a religion when it's self-proclaimed, so personally, I follow that as far as inserting religion into the body of a BLP. I think it's better to remove it as contentious and poorly sourced per WP:BLP in any case like you said. —PermStrump(talk) 05:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand your issues with Dianne Feinstein's religion. Here she is discussing being a leader of the Jewish community with the Jerusalem Post and what it meant to be Jewish. http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Most-influential-Jews-in-diplomacy-and-politics-Dianne-Feinstein-404004 You can also look at the entry on Diane Feinstein in the the Jewish virtual library and the Encyclopedia of Judaism discussing specific aspects of her Jewish education and her choice to identify as Jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.145.80 (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

In the JPost interview, she doesn't talk about being Jewish at all. Also, could you link to the specific pages in the Jewish virtual library and the Encyclopedia of Judaism you have in mind? Chris Hallquist (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The interviewer called her a leader in the Jewish community, but I don't see where Feinstein stated herself that she identifies as Jewish. Plenty of people with only one Jewish parent (especially if it's the dad) don't consider themselves Jewish, so it's not a natural assumption that she does consider herself Jewish. What value does including it add to the article? What value is lost by not including it? I don't see that it really adds anything and it unless there's a source where she clearly self-identifies as Jewish, it runs the risk of being false. —PermStrump(talk) 23:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is another source where she talks about being Jewish. She has an essay discussing the spiritual and cultural significance of her Jewishness. "I Am Jewish: Personal Reflections Inspired by the Last Words of Daniel Pearl" Jewish Lights Publishing, 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.145.80 (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Something feels fishy with the google preview. It looks like a self-published list of names, but maybe there's a glitch with the preview search? What's the exact quote from her? —PermStrump(talk) 01:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, what's the urgency with publishing her religion on her BLP? —PermStrump(talk) 01:40, 27 July 2016

I don't see an issue with the preview it goes to the book which was published by a publishing house in both hardcover and softcover editions. It has a lot of names because it is a compilation of essays written by different people including Feinstein. Her essay is on page 228 and 229. here is the ending of her essay "For me, that's what it means to be a Jew, and every day I rededicate myself to that ideal." (pg 2229) Feinstein is also included in the book The_Jews_of_Capitol_Hill https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Jews_of_Capitol_Hill.html?id=ACTF56SnaykC where there is a discussion of her upbringing and her decision to identify fully as Jewish despite her mother's Christianity.

Using web archive as a source

On Tyrel Jackson Williams in Personal Life, there is a source for the sole sentence in the section. However, the source redirects to web archives of a previous version of the page from DisneyXD. Is this permitted? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Revision of picture on Harshvardhan Kapoor's wikipedia page

Hello,

I'm a representative of Harshvardhan Kapoor, the actor who's biography is available at: Harshvardhan Kapoor

The actor requests that the current picture be replaced by a more recent one, which I'd be happy to provide to the administrators of the page.

The picture currently used on his page is dated and not very representative of the actor's current look & personality.

Please advise on how to replace the same.

Thanks,

Priti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.72.225.223 (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to read through Misplaced Pages's fair use policy and upload an updated image of Kapoor to Wikimedia Commons. Once you upload the image, I'd be more than happy to add it to the page. 02:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Charles Perrow

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

I believe the article on Charles Perrow reports what is available on its web page on the Yale University's website. Although I don't appropriate relying on a single source, I believe the university's page is an authoritative source. Therefore, I request the banners complaining about the poor quality of the stub to be removed and the page to be unmarked for deletion. This in one of the most important researchers in the fields of Sociology and Business. I believe he deserves having a Misplaced Pages entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.188.161.160 (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

IP, thank you for reporting this - I agree with what you're saying, and will 'meet you half way'. I've removed one of the tags as I believe that there are enough sources listed at the article. I do however agree with the editor who placed the {{primary sources}} tag. Misplaced Pages has a page you may wish to read about primary sources. Lastly, the page is not listed for deletion. Is there anything else we can help you with? -- samtar 14:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe they are talking about the old deletion nom on the talkpage. It is not current IP, it is there for historical purposes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Bridgette Kerkove

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

A bit of especially derogatory information has been included, reverted for BLP reasons and then re-inserted into this bio, without an effort to achieve consensus for the re-insertion on the talk page. I re-reverted and asked the editor to go to the talk page to try to establish a consensus before attempting to re-insert again. Please see this diff, the prior edits to that one, and the discussion on the talk page. Additional input (on either side of the issue) would be welcome. David in DC (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so the argument presented for removal of the text is founded on the fact that the person in question was not convicted of the allegation, although the main purpose of its insertion was not to discredit the individual in question but rather to provide background to the reasons of their divorce, this and in addition to the fact that the case in question was highly publicized. The information was properly referenced using a reliable source and I have heard no contention regarding the choice of source. However, my confusion stems from the fact that "dropped allegations" seem to be acceptable to a wide array of celebrities, such as Michael Jackson, Robert Blake, Jonathan King, Cliff Richard etc. There is no doubt that these celebrities were accused of "derogatory" accusations, so why would we hold a double-standard and disallow it in cases such as this? The policy of dealing with cases such as this should be universal and not subject to wanton subjectivity or WP:CRYBLP or WP:BLPZEALOT (I am not referring to the editor above in this case, but to a different editor on that page who applies BLP in this manner for self-serving purposes). Holanthony (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. That you don't distinguish between uncorroborated, apparently discredited allegations against non-notable or minimally notable individuals and widely publicized actual criminal prosecutions of highly notable public figures is just another compelling bit of evidence that you shouldn't be editing BLPs at all. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

How were any of the names I mentioned (with the exception of Robert Blake) prosecuted? Misplaced Pages does not "rank" celebrity notability. According to Wiki's rules of notability, you either are a notable person (and thus worthy of having a Wiki page) or you're not. As such, the same rules apply TO EVERYONE, whether User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz likes it or not. Which brings me to my point, we can't have double standards for different people depending on the subjective mood of a particular editor, which is why I would appreciate some clarification here.Holanthony (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The Triggering and "Trigglypuff"

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

Could someone give me a second opinion on this article. Its ostensibly about a campus event called the "Triggering" but spends a lot of time focusing on a mostly non notable activist who the internet has nicknamed "Trigglypuff" as an insult. The sources all also seem to be borderline at the very least, mostly coming from student press and obscure libertarian publications (also lots of Breitbart). Should this article mention the activist, should the article exist at all? I've not really edited Misplaced Pages in a while so I feel a bit rusty on this stuff. Brustopher (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

(Copying my comments over from Talk:The Triggering) Stating what happened is not "to insult and mock other people involved". This event became known in large part because of #Trigglypuff going viral. juju (hajime! | waza) 23:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it" This does not apply. Neither does "individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic"—she was directly involved and is a big part of the reason the event itself is notable. juju (hajime! | waza) 23:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The student press sources were supplementary and don't form the backbone of the article, and Breitbart is RS—POV, but RS if WP is careful about not taking on the source's bias. Which publications are obscure, exactly? (Honest question, so I can address the concern.) juju (hajime! | waza) 23:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

And by all means, if anyone comes across any sources that are more neutral or even progressive, please add them (but of course don't use that as a justification to remove the existing ones). juju (hajime! | waza)

Breitbart is not WP:RS. Just search the archives of WP:RSN and you can see it's been discussed many times and never been deemed reliable for more then it's readers own opinion. Even if it were reliable, it's not an independent source in this context as the controversy involves a Breitbart editor. — Strongjam (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

When it comes to living people, Breitbart should be avoided and considered unreliable. Especially so when the topic contains politics or polemics. Would argue Breitbart is not RS here. Article seems ripe for AFD imho. GNG is tenuous at best. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• No opinion on the article's overall notability, but I'd say that the activist's name shouldn't be included. From what I do see of the event news-wise, there aren't a lot of places that mention her name and most importantly - I don't see where she's come forward to discuss the event. When it comes to naming names we have to question whether or not the article is less for not including it - and offhand I don't see where we really gain anything by naming her. There aren't many articles that specifically name this student and would be considered even a remotely RS on Misplaced Pages. I think I counted about two of them, so that's a pretty solid argument against including her name. Most of the places that do mention her as "Trigglypuff" don't use her name - New York Magazine is a good example of this. We don't have to include the person's name even if it's relatively common knowledge, especially if real world harm could come out of it, as prior edits included her name and college. Especially considering that a complaint was filed against the person who videotaped the student, which would imply that the student doesn't want her name spread around. We can get the general point across without naming names. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

"should the article exist at all?" I don't see why it should. Insignificant article about non-notable protest at non-notable meeting on something to do with those wretched Pokemon things. Suggest AFD'ing the whole mess. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You will never get consensus to delete it at the moment, it's a US uni interest and supported by that large group of wikipedia contributors, which is one of the largest, so please do not nominate it for deletion, its support will only make its existence and wikipedia publication stronger, just let it be while they are focused on it and when they have moved on we can delete it. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You do realize that the event itself had nothing to do with "those wretched Pokemon things", right? juju (hajime! | waza) 06:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring the worthiness of this being a topic, we purposely kept the name of the Star Wars Kid out of the article - despite the fact he was named in RSes - up until the point he came forth himself to admit being that person as part of his intent to speak out against the bullying he had endured and to help others (so the present article does now mention it). Same logic should apply here - no need to name the person despite the fact RSes likely name the individual. --MASEM (t) 05:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Not really a good example. The Star Wars kid had no intention of his (private) video becoming public, nor did he court public attention. 'Trigglypuff' was the opposite. A quote actually in the article sums it up well, "We know who is and we know what believes because has told us these things. is an activist, and when an activist goes to a public event and disrupts it by shouting obscenities — “F–k you! ... Keep your hate speech off this campus!” — public activism is newsworthy. Identifying is not “doxing.”" Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Except, that the student never likely expected to become a meme, despite their actions being done in a public venue. BLP errs on protecting their name unless they themselves want to be associated with the Trigglypuff meme, which is how I compare to the SWK meme. And best I am aware, that student has not made it crystal clear they want to be associated with the meme. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Sarah Silverman

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

I quoted with attribution and reference Washington Post Reporter Aaron Blake: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/25/democrats-dispatched-sarah-silverman-to-defuse-the-bernie-sanders-situation-it-didnt-go-great/ quoted and footnoted material in 2rd paragraph from bottom -- "Nevertheless..." is it a copyright issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidRego (talk • contribs) 03:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• @DavidRego: It depends on how much you're quoting and how - if the quote is very lengthy then it can still be seen as a copyright violation, especially if the quote isn't overly dire to include as it was written. From what I can see here the quote wasn't overly long but I do have to question its inclusion since it does seem a little point-y and you also need to show that this statement would warrant inclusion. I'd recommend holding off for the time being and gathering reactions from multiple different organizations rather than just one, in order to give a good range of reactions but also to show that this comment was important enough to be included in her Misplaced Pages page. You've got to be careful of recentism. Odds are this likely should be included, it just needs to be carefully written in order to get both viewpoints. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • It doesn't look like it was removed as a copyright issue. Aikibro's edit summary says, "Removed opinion of Washington Post reporter on Silverman's comment". Journalists are reliable sources for reporting facts, but it's probably undue weight to quote this one journalist's personal opinion on Silverman's comment unless, I guess, the reporter is some kind of recognized expert on whatever the comment was. —PermStrump(talk) 05:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 Democratic National Convention

All edits and edit summaries from 04:26, 26 July 2016 until 08:40, 26 July 2016. Need to be deleted similar to this one. This may be a Privacy of names issue and the person involved ( the disabled activist, please don't name them) may not be notable. I feel I made a mistake in this one. Please delete this for the sake of that person's privacy. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hamza Tzortzis

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

This article is frequently updated (and in my opinion, vandalised) by GorgeCustersSabre to almost exclusively refer to defamatory and potentially libelous assertions. The updates remove objective references to Hamza's activities, engagements, achievements, and statements in his own words, and instead focuses on quote-mining and highlighting negative comments from media smear-campaigns against him based on tenuous links.

The page almost reads like "this is what so-and-so says about Hamza", as opposed to "this is who he is and what he does".

I appreciate the quotes are from mainstream media, but quote-mining displays a distorted image if it's not balanced with any responses or rebuttals made by the person concerned, and completely ignores other activities regardless of whether they've been reported on or not.

For example, Hamza has debated many prominent academics who have their own pages on Misplaced Pages. Hamza has engaged with this, but just because the mainstream media has not reported on this should not mean to say that Hamza is not actively involved in this field.

The problem is any changes or edits are frequently reverted by the user mentioned above, based on emotional/subjective rhetoric alone, and I would appreciate a neutral person stepping in to help assist in evaluating whether the content is accurately representative of the person concerned (i.e. Hamza) and doesn't rely almost exclusively on content produced by right-wing media rehashing the same unsupported claims with ambiguous terms whilst ignoring the bulk of Hamza's work and his responses to the very same.

Apologies if I've missed anything obvious/necessary, this is my first time making such a complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamShady (talk • contribs) 10:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@JamShady: thank you for bringing this here - while we work through this, could I ask you to stop reverting any changes made to the article? When in a dispute, it is better to discuss (as you are now beginning to do) the content - we have policies which could result in you being blocked should you continue to edit war. @GorgeCustersSabre: would it be possible for you to join this coversation?

My understanding of the situation is that GorgeCustersSabre has a valid point - all claims made on Misplaced Pages should be cited with a reliable source. The claims you are trying to insert into the article are not referenced - @JamShady: do you think you can find two reliable sources which verify the content you are adding and list them below? -- samtar 10:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@JamShady: Are you the same Jamshady as the one who went to Africa for IERA, Tzortzis's organization? See here. If so, I am not sure if you editing the article is OK according to the rules.Jeff5102 (talk) 11:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

How outrageous to be accused of vandalism for twice reverting an edit that is unreferenced and clearly non-neutral ("involved with presenting a cohesive compassionate narrative for orthodox Islamic values in a modern setting" etc). Someone has been reading his website, which states that he is "Compassionately articulating a positive cogent case for Islamic thought and philosophy." Misplaced Pages requires citations to reliable, authoritative, and neutral third-party sources. Two good sets of Misplaced Pages guidelines that I have found really useful can be found HERE and HERE. I try hard to follow these guidelines. Which, may I ask, have I violated? George Custer's Sabre (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me, I don't know how to do proper replies.

Yes, I agree information should be cited where relevant, but which aspects here need citation? That he's Muslim, British, a convert to Islam, of Greek heritage, works for iERA, has debated various academics, is a public speaker and lecturer, and general outlook? There's no newspaper profile or article that refers to these, but these are all matters of fact. Where would you obtain references from this except his own statements (which any newspaper profile, etc, would also refer to).

Further, the assertion that he's involved with presenting cohesive compassionate narrative for orthodox Islamic values in a modern setting is the exact foundation for his works. One only has to read through his material to see this is what he talks about. The alternative into from Gilligan is definitely not neutral at all, and makes horrid sensationlist claims that have been unsupported except by random statements presented without context. There's definite bias in that article, and it's not counter-balanced with anything else. It's not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamShady (talk • contribs) 12:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@JamShady: I've indented your reply for you - just to let you know I've reverted the article to a previous version per the reasons given in my first reply, and the reply of GorgeCustersSabre. Jeff5102 (above) has a question which would be prudent for you to address -- samtar 12:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes I am the same one that went to Africa with iERA though I'm not involved with the organisation (nor have been involved in their activities for a few years). In either case, I'm just trying to present objective factual points, devoid of emotion or personal perspective or agenda. Hamza's page should be about Hamza, not selective commentary on what others wish to accuse him of as part of a bigger narrative. Even Osama bin Laden's page is more balanced than this one, presenting facts rather than massively quoting from agenda-based articles.

If the content is objectively sound, and the crux of a person's character, does it matter who authored it? If another person mentioned that he's a public speaker and lecturer, etc, would it be more significant than one who knows him personally? How is it appropriate to exclude reference to this when it makes up the bulk of his activities, and is the basis for his notoriety (he gets invited to universities because of his involvement in this field, which is where the media then appear in order to attack the message he brings). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamShady (talk • contribs) 13:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@JamShady: I think it's best for us to identify and stay on topic - the issue is that of verifiability. We really do need some reliable sources (which won't be agenda-based articles) to support the content you are trying to add. Can you provide any? -- samtar 13:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree it's best to stay on topic - for me that topic is Hamza and his work, not what Andrew Gilligan wants to make of him. As for articles to support the content I'm trying to add, I'm at a loss in understanding this, or what you'd need for which claims exactly? His debates, for example, are all available on YouTube, and linked to by his own website. There's no "article" discussing his debates with X, Y, or Z because the media aren't interested in that, but that doesn't mean this is what he actively engages in. His role and activites within iERA are cited on their website: https://www.iera.org/education/book-a-speaker/meet-our-speakers/. His non-iERA lectures are on yet another website: https://www.alkauthar.org/instructor.php?id=23

I almost feel at this point that he'd need an article in the Times discussing whether he's male before that could be included? Are the points I'm trying to add really that sensational or disputable?

Incidentally, the guidelines also state that potentially libelous material should be removed. His page (which is a stub) has 3-4 references to extremism, as compared to someone like Osama that barely has that many across the whole length. The article reduces Hamza down to a singular perspective and is causing problems in his personal/professional life by regurgitated unsubstantiated views without giving due context to his own responses to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamShady (talk • contribs) 13:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Any update on this @Samtar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamShady (talk • contribs) 08:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Mayuto Correa

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

I am Mayuto Correa, I am a subject of an article listed in Misplaced Pages and I've been noticing changes on the text of the article about me. I have two concerns with that: 1: why the additions to the article are being deleted and by whom? Since the additions I noticed are corrected, according to correct sources of reference regarding my career – I would reject any untruthful addiction (positive or negative) about my life but, likewise, the deleting of accurate additions seems malicious, unprofessional and shameful coming from Misplaced Pages, which is there with objective of being impartial in the preservation of history.

In view of what has happened in the article I am subject of, I spent time looking into other articles and pages featured in Misplaced Pages, particularly, of friends of mine, that participate together with me in the same projects; in addition I looked at their Misplaced Pages articles, source and reference pages and noticed that their sources and references were identical to the ones added to my article and deleted from there. When I looked for answers about that I'd got entangled on the overwhelming amount of generic details of “how to,” “not to” and “why not,” but couldn't find any rational justification for the rejection and deleting of correct additions to my article.

One detail of information I saw and that was referring to “Police,” or voluntaries that guard the editions of Misplaced Pages; I could not find one, specifically, to ask for answers, but I left a note on a pad suggested by a generic being who said that he was rejecting all the changes of my article: I got no response. That raises more questions, because there's not a real person to be contacted, but the problems are real. My other concern is with the actual article, which has been there for several years, without any change and no indication of who wrote that very small article. Though the few details of the article are correct, the article, besides my name, describes a person and an artist that has nothing to do with me. That bothers me very much, and more, because, according to the site, nobody knows who rote that article and there is nobody to correct that and the ones who added correct information it got rejected and deleted.

Let's be real: Contact me directly, so we can, rationally, resolve the issue and if is necessary I will pay an expert in generic or surreal information to write an article that reflects my career as musician, composer, arranger, singer, producer, actor, director, writer. That is what I do since I am a teenager and the sources of references are available and offered. Let's be real, please. Here is my information: MAYUTO CORREA – — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.86.228 (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! I have asked two people who know more about this stuff than I do to leave a comment here. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not one of those people, but decided to take a look myself. The first (and currently the only) paragraph in the article is verified in the sources. For example, here is a good link to one of the sources, which gives the same information and no more.

The long paragraphs of stuff being inserted into the article are not found in those sources as far as I can tell. No offense intended, but I'll list a few of the problems I see. The writing style is fine for an autobiography, but not even close to an encyclopedic style and tone. It's in first person, even though all of the "I"s have been changed to "he"s. The writing is narrative rather than expository (telling the story like a novel rather than simply reporting the facts and notable opinions.)

The biggest problem is the lack of sources for this new information. Misplaced Pages doesn't accept autobiographies, so there needs to be sources where this information already exists. We can't accept copy/pasted work either, because the information must be written in the contributor's own words. Both facts and opinions need to be attributed to a reliable source of information. Ideally every paragraph should have a source that others can go look up. This is to protect the subject from people putting whatever they want into the article, and this rule applies to the subject as well.

We have a duty to protect the privacy of people, and especially that of non-notable people who, for whatever reason, may not want their name and info posted on Misplaced Pages for all to see. This includes things like names of friends, associates, family members and children. These things should only be included if they can be found in multiple sources (not just one) and also if it can be shown that it is indeed relevant to the article. (For example, a news story about a car crash doesn't gain anything by naming every person involved in the crash. Unless the names are highly notable the story will read just the same if they are omitted.)

That's just a little of what is wrong with the additions you are proposing. They need a lot of work and a lot of sourcing to reach the standards of an encyclopedia. As is, it's better suited to facebook or some other site. I would suggest doing some research on our policies, such as the Misplaced Pages:Manual of style, WP:Reliable source, WP:Verifiability, WP:Neutral point of view, and WP:Biographies of living persons. I hope that helps explain. Zaereth (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

First of all we can't tell if the particular IP address is you or not but for now we will assume that it is. Second, nobody is likely to contact you by email. Most things are kept on Misplaced Pages so everybody can see it. I deleted a large amount of material because of copyright problems. You would not like it if somebody took your music and the same applies to written works. Zaereth has given an excellent explanation of other problems in the article and why they were removed. I would suggest that you don't waste your money hiring a professional writer as there are better ways to work through this.

I suggest that you register an account then work with the Misplaced Pages:Volunteer Response Team, who can be contacted at Misplaced Pages:OTRS noticeboard or by email, to prove who you are. Then declare on Talk:Mayuto Correa that you have a Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. Then you can make suggestions on that talk page and other editors can review and help to improve the article. Remember that as a biography having sources/references is very important. Lack of them can lead to peoples birthdays being removed to avoid problems. Also please don't add long lists of external links as they will be removed quickly. Hope this helps. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hello Mr. Correa. I wrote the current article on you. It is in the article's history for all to see, including you. No one is hiding anything from you. Let me just explain how that article came about. On 30 April 2008, long before I became involved, an editor named Mayuto Correa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs), presumably you or someone representing you, created the first version of the article. It was deleted on 2 May 2008 as a copyright violation because it appeared to be a straight copy of this page on AllAboutJazz. Then in September 2008 User:Mayuto Correa added this different but still unsuitable biography to his talk page. I first encountered it when in October 2013, the IP 66.215.87.74 attempted to paste the whole biography into Misplaced Pages:Copying text from other sources. I then found the text on User:Mayuto Correa's talk page. I moved the text to User:Mayuto Correa/sandbox and explained what I had done on User talk:Mayuto Correa. I realized that although the artist Mayuto Correa was indeed notable, User:Mayuto Correa and the IP were going to struggle with getting an article on Misplaced Pages because they were very confused about how Misplaced Pages works and seemed unwilling to communicate with other editors. So, I created a brief but accurate and properly referenced stub, and hoped that other editors would expand it. It definitely needs expansion and this could be done using reliable sources. Unfortunately, starting in 2015 you (Mr. Correa) editing as an IP have repeatedly attempted to add the inappropriate material (including further copyright violations) to the article, as have two other editors, who I assume are you or your associates: Umsaco (talk · contribs) and Rexiregum (talk · contribs). Mr. Correa, these additions were repeatedly reverted by several other editors and administrators to protect the editorial integrity of Misplaced Pages. It was not done as an insult to you. We simply cannot publish copyright material. We cannot publish material about living persons which cannot be verified via references to independent previously published sources. We cannot publish material which is not neutrally written. These are core policies of Misplaced Pages and apply to all articles. CambridgeBayWeather gave you good advice. Register an account and then take the further steps he suggested. Hopefully, other editors will step in to help expand the article. I realize that you are upset, but I have to tell you that they are more likely to take an interest in expanding and improving the article if you don't refer to them as "malicious, unprofessional and shameful". Voceditenore (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion: If everything you wrote is true (and from finding your name in other sources like this it just may be), write an autobiography. Then have it published by a reliable publisher. Then sit and wait, collect royalties, and sure enough some fan will read it, then use it to whatever extent they can as a source to improve this article. Zaereth (talk) 08:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Zaereth, I don't think that book reference you linked is the same person. Voceditenore (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe not; the book doesn't say. Only the real Correa would know for sure. I was guessing based upon the additions to our article, but lacking good sources, writing his own book would probably be the best way to set the story straight. Misplaced Pages isn't the place to do that. Zaereth (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• I've now expanded the article with more about Mr. Correa's life and career with inline citations. I must say, I had better things to do with my volunteer time, but there you have it. I'd appreciate it if the other editors here, The Quixotic Potato, Zaereth, and CambridgeBayWeather, could keep an eye on it to avoid a repetition of Mr. Correa re-adding the previous wildly unsuitable material. Voceditenore (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

{@Voceditenore: Nice work! Thank you. I will keep the article on my watchlist for a while, but I am currently not very active because I am quite busy IRL. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll watch it as well. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Leonor Fini

The article contains the text: "It has been reported that Fini was ] but there is no proof of this despite the many claims by people that did not know her.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Melly|first1=George|title=OBITUARY:Leonor Fini|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituaryleonor-fini-1325670.html|website=www.independent.co.uk|accessdate=March 8, 2015}}</ref> She is documented as to having had relations with many different men."

and

] ] ] ] ] ]

Are there any reliable sources that can be used to improve the article?

(((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

• If her bisexuality was never confirmed then she should not be placed in any LGBT or bisexual categories. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

  I agree, however this is not a BLP issue as she is 20 years dead. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

  Actually from taking a look there are reports in reliable sources (her obituary is one, but others can be found on the net) about her alleged bisexuality, and as her art often had sapphic themes, it was a natural speculation for critics/etc to make about the artist. Direct quotes appear in short supply - she outright denied being homosexual (but didnt deny being bisexual) and obviously had multiple relationships with men. Since she is dead any self-declaration is not forthcoming - I have removed the categories but I might put some of them back - she might not have been (or declared LGBT) but her body of work is certainly important in the LGBT art world. Unfortunately I dont think the categories adaquately cover this distinction. Is there a category for 'LGBT art' rather than artist? Off to have a look. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: Thank you! (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Tavis Ormandy

Just another researcher. Works at Google. Nothing special. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:54D:4C00:801E:ACB3:3D2B:45CE (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages, there are many people who are considered to be WP:NOTABLE for silly stuff like kicking a ball or singing badly. Tavis Ormandy passes WP:GNG. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Brenton Thwaites' interest in men and women

There is an ongoing BLP issue on the Brenton Thwaites article, pertaining to the actor's sexuality or more specifically interest in men as well as women.

"Thwaites has been dating his Gold Coast-based girlfriend Chloe Pacey since 2015, after the two had been room mates whilst Thwaites was in Australia filming Pirates. The couple became parents in March 2016, after Pacey gave birth to a baby girl. Brenton once vocalized his interest for both men and women as partners, when he fielded a question from a fan who asked about the three things he looks for in a partner. Brenton replied by asking back, “male or female? They’re very different.”" - (source: Brenton Thwaites Vaguely Comes Out As Bisexual. One More And We’ve Got A Hat Trick.. (2014))

I think the highlighted content ought to remain excluded, for the following reasons:

• The citations provided seem to be in violation of #1 and #3 of WP:GRAPEVINE; that is, the sources are your typical gossip sources.
• Per WP:BLPGOSSIP: the source isn't as reliable as it could be; his previous statements on his supposed interest of men/women isn't "relevant to a disinterested article about the subject" – especially considering the subject now has a child with a girlfriend.
• I'd feel a lot more comfortable if Thwaites clarified what he meant, and then we could add said content in.

We are supposed to state objective facts – how do we know whether or not Thwaites was serious about what he said?

Since the 2014 source, the subject has a partner and and a child. I'm not quite seeing how a past statement (which didn't quite confirm or deny anything) may override that? —MelbourneStar☆ 08:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, having a girl and a kid doesn't necessarily negate bisexuality. I never heard of Queerty, so I don't know how reliable they are. I wasn't able to access the link above. That said, the title seems to say it all. This is a clear case of synthesis, using a "soundbite" taken completely out of context to imply something not actually said. This could have been a joke, being indicated by the mere inflection of his voice, or it may have been serious, but we don't know that from the context. It's adding 2 and 2 to get 5. (ie: Jon says he prefers Mustangs over Corvettes. Conclusion: Jon hates Corvettes. Ridiculous!)

RS is never a "black and white" thing. The reliability of a source is directly related to the information it is providing. They admit it was a vague utterance and they're just reaching, so who are we to state unequivocally that it is fact. As BLP clearly states, we are not a tabloid, do not delve into titillating details of the subject's sex lives, and require both excellent sourcing and a demonstration that it's necessary for understanding the subject. Zaereth (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I completely understand that sexuality is fluid (RS is never black and white - nor is sexuality haha!) — and you hit the nail on the head regarding context. I completely agree with your sentiments above! thanks for your views. —MelbourneStar☆ 07:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Tawfik Hamid

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

Within the primary source, the person listed claims to have a Masters in two different areas from one university. The University's site lists only one, which is not the one he brings out on the page. Additionally, the person in the article claims to be have been friends with terrorists... but the talk page indicates some discrepancies. The page also heavily cites from the author's own site, which may not be the most credible, especially in light of the inconsistent narratives he has about his education and his life history.

Finally, there is heavy bias; it looks very biased toward him by quoting his methodology directly from his website, or makes statements without citations about the subject's views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldwayz (talk • contribs)

many biographies

Have had the category "Christian fundamentalists" appended without strong sourcing for that categorization - including use on Catholics and others where no source for that category has been furnished per the requirement for self-identification. I think that category should be re-examined at this point, IMO. Collect (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

There are certain things that I personally am against categorizing people under, such as sexual orientation, race, and one is religion. Race is such a pervasive category that it's referred to as one of the three basic categories. Belief systems, on the other hand, is much farther down the list.

The benefit of categories is that the human mind functions by categorizing things. It is impossible to get around. This function is hard-wired right into the amygdala. (For example, when walking through a neighborhood, people rarely remember the true shape of each house, car and tree. Instead these memories are stored as generic categories.) The Handbook of Neurosociology talks about this in detail.

The problem with categorization of people is that people are much more complex. Categorization creates ingroups and outgroups, where people in the outgroup are considered to be homogeneous (all the same), which is the foundation for stereotyping. It is well known that when people begin to see those in the outgroup as heterogeneous (individuals) the fear and prejudices decline. Zaereth (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

We should get rid of all these religion categories. Granted there are cases where religion is important to the person's identity or professional activities. But this is better explained in a more thorough and nuanced way in the text rather than simply attaching a category. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Recall that the NYT had to correct an error: "Karol Wojtyla was referred to in Saturday’s Credo column as “the first non-Catholic pope for 450 years”. This should, of course, have read “non-Italian”. We apologise for the error. I would have thought that the NYT should have known that the Pope was usually Catholic without being prodded to correct that. Collect (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Did this also include a retraction for saying that bears do not defecate in the woods? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Anna Zalewska

Anna Zalewska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Anna Zalewska is a Polish minister who has recently stirred up controversy when , in an interview she gave, she appeared to deny or minimize the role that Polish citizens played in two WWII-era pogroms where 340+ Jews were killed, most of them burned alive. numerous reliable sources have covered the incident and the reactions to it - a small sample - . Is it appropriate to include the following sentence about this incident in the article Anna Zalewska?

"Zalewska was criticized in July of 2016 for statements which seemingly denied or minimized the role played by Poles in the Jedwabne pogrom of 1941. In that incident, Poles were convicted by a Polish court of burning alive more than 300 Jews "

My understanding is that this fully complies with the BLP policy regarding public figures: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Impact Hub (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

References

1. "Polish education minister blasted for 1940s Jewish massacre remarks - Europe". Haaretz.com. Retrieved 2016-07-16. Poland's education minister has sparked criticism for appearing to deny Polish responsibility for two massacres of Jews in the 1940s.
2. "'Slap in face of Holocaust survivors': World Jewish body slams Polish officials over WWII remarks". www.rt.com. Retrieved 2016-07-27. Zalewska refused to openly admit the involvement of Polish citizens in the massacres of Jews in the town of Jedwabne in 1941, in which more than 300 Jews were burned alive inside a barn, and in Kielce in 1946, in which 42 Jews were shot by Polish police.
3. "Polish education minister blasted for Jewish massacre remarks". Toronto Star. Poland's education minister has sparked criticism for appearing to deny Polish responsibility for two massacres of Jews in the 1940s.
4. "Polish Minister Says Unclear If Neighbors Killed Jews in Notorious Pogrom". The Forward. Amid a public debate about the complicity of Poles in the murder of Jews in the Holocaust, Poland's education minister implied that historical accounts of such atrocities are inconclusive.

I would add that Zalewska is the education minister, not a historian, and she said as much during the interview in question. There is a great deal of information about this at Talk:Jedwabne pogrom#Education Minister Anna Zalewska; I won't waste anybody's time by copying and pasting it here. I will point out that a BLP that consists of not much more than a controversy section, such as Zalewska's did yesterday, should have been speedily deleted as an attack page. Even now, the only thing the article would say about Zalewsk's eight years in parliament and eight months as education minister is that a small group of foreigners worked themselves into a lather about a possibly mistranslated sentence in an interview she gave. How is that consistent with the conservative, cautious style we're supposed to use for BLPs? — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 02:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Minister Zalewska was coaxed into taking part in a public dialogue by two eloquent and skilled TV broadcasters, Monika Olejnik from TVN24, and Agnieszka Burzyńska from FAKT24, who specialize in drumming up top ratings for their regular TV interviews. The exchange specifically about Jedwabne and Kielce lasted for less than a minute in each interview. Zalewska did not deny anything outright because she is also a skilled politician. She only repeated time and again that the incidents are shrouded in controversy. Personally, I'm impressed by how good these women are at what they do, however, there's no place in an encyclopedia for any of this media whizz. Poeticbent talk 13:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Márcio Fernandes

Someone have added informations on this page that are not true with clear intention to prejudice the athlete. The IP address is 81.99.230.245 from Chingford- London I would like wikipedia to take actions against the person and make the page safer. If this happen again we will take legal actions.

Thanks for your attention

Fernandes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernandes 2015 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not allow legal threats. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The editor was also referring to a post from January that had been reverted. Shearonink (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

List of oldest living people

SiameseTurtle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The list of oldest living people page lists living supercentenarians - people known to be alive over the age of 110 years. The issue I have is with the ranks that are used for the living people. One source, the Gerontology Research Group states the rank of the living person. However, there are currently only 48 people listed from this source - all born in September 1904 and before. Other sources, such as news reports are given for other people listed who are younger supercentenarians. However, these either give no rank, or an outdated rank that no longer applies because several months have passed. Despite this, ranks have been assigned to these people without a reliable source to back them up. My issue with this is that we cannot merely just add a rank to a living person without a reliable source, especially given that calculating the rank is not an exact science.

Within the introduction to the list, the article states "The actual number of living supercentenarians has been estimated at 150 and 600. The true number of living supercentenarians is uncertain because not all supercentenarians are known to researchers at a given time and also because some supercentenarian claims are unproven."

There are a lot of uncertainties that are mentioned here. There could be anywhere from 150-600 people aged over 110, which is quite a large range. Comparing this to the list itself, there are currently less than 150 people listed. The article goes on to state that not all supercentenarians are known about, and going by these figures, there could be over 450 people missing from the list. Clearly if there are many supercentenarians missing from the list, then this would drastically affect the ranking system.

One member suggested that WP:CALC should apply. However I dispute that because it's clear we do not have full information about supercentenarians, so it is not an obvious calculation. There is also plenty of evidence in the history of the article of newly discovered people being assigned to a high rank, and then having everyone else move down a place - which seems to happen on a regular basis. That's clearly not possible - no-one's rank is going to drop as they get older. It's merely that the unsourced ranks were inaccurate in the first place because not all supercentenarians were known about. Having inaccurate and unsourced information about living people would appear to violate WP:BLP.

My issue is that the ranks that have been assigned to living people on Misplaced Pages are being assigned on incorrect assumptions about the information we have. Since we know that many supercentenarians are not known, we cannot know for sure what someone's rank is. I feel the current situation to assign a rank for everyone violates WP:OR and WP:SYN as the ranks below about 48 are not reliably sourced, and they make a false assumption that we know of every supercentenarian, which is refuted by information by sources in the article. We simply cannot assume that the next person on the list is the next oldest person in real life.

My suggestion has been to remove ranks that are not reliably sourced particularly because I feel this violates WP:BLP to have unsourced information about living people, but this has been met with some contention and it was suggested that I brought the case here for further discussion. SiameseTurtle (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution