Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Masem (talk | contribs) at 17:34, 24 August 2017 (→Google's Ideological Echo Chamber). 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

Elisa Jordana

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

Article contains misinformation and whenever it is corrected the changes are undone. Correct birth year (1982) and reference to a Playboy pictorial are called disrespectful by the fan who then deletes them. Misplaced Pages is not a press release and the self-aggrandizing elements that I removed should remain out or the article should be marked for removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterned (talk • contribs) 21:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• The page was full-protected on 20 August for two weeks (until 3 September) following a report at WP:AN3 . --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Jesse Taylor

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

The first entry on this page refers to Season 25 of The Ultimate Fighter and lists the two fighters who will fight in the finale of the show. Season 25 doesn't premiere until April 19, 2017, so the information listed on Taylor's page is either inaccurate or is revealing the results of a season that has not aired yet.

link to site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.17.255.154 (talk) 16:10, April 10, 2017‎

As of today (in TV time), it's both. Right match, wrong slot. Still possible with shenanigans, I suppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, June 27, 2017 (UTC)

Bob Iger

Someone changed the his official name to include "EPCOT died under my reign" as his middle name. This should be corrected.

Lyndon Martin W. Beharry

Lyndon Martin W. Beharry A self-aggrandizing article of no merit, featuring an unknown person, at https://en.wikipedia.org/Lyndon_Martin_W._Beharry

Tina Fernandes Botts

Tina Fernandes Botts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have nothing against her. Botts is a fine assistant professor of philosophy at California State University, Fresno. I have seen her give talks and she is good at her job. However she is an assistant professor of philosophy, and she has not done any major contribution to any other field, nor is she an important public figure. We can't have wikipedia pages for every assistant professor in every field... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.185.139 (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2017

Dana Rohrabacher

We're seeing a problem with WP:UNDUE in the article Dana Rohrabacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). After I pared back an unencyclopedic WP:UNDUE statement in which an exchange of views over one question Rorabacher recently asked during a session of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology was presented verbatim and given undue weight over the rest of Rorabacher's activity on that House Committee, User:Tomwsulcer reverted the change for this reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dana_Rohrabacher&diff=794980837&oldid=794932776 - his edit summary read "Rv as per WP:MOS the lede section is supposed to summarize subjects main points which should not be buried below.". The change wasn't in a lede paragraph. User:Tomwsulcer is referring to another discussion on that article's talk page which also has relevance to this issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dana_Rohrabacher#Lede_paragraphs. In that section, he told another editor "this one supposedly little fact may be what causes this guy to resign, and it should not be buried" which seems to show he wanted the change to create WP:PROPAGANDA.

I have no problem with Rorabacher's embarrassing stands being mentioned in the article with due weight with other information about him, but an encyclopedic article ought to summarize this information with inline citations to allow the reader to find the source material in greater detail. It should not reproduce information word-for-word with accompanying white space from the source document, in a way we don't see in encyclopedic articles. I'd like other editors to examine the specific change I mentioned at the top of this report and the entire Dana Rohrabacher article in general to see whether or not my impression that the article presents information damaging to the subject with undue weight, creating WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP concerns, is valid. Thanks. loupgarous (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

My concern was not with Vfrikey's change (which will be restored) but with a previous POV editor, who removed swaths of referenced content. We're trying to keep the article balanced.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned that the article makes a point of highlighting what appears to be a simple slip of the tongue -- saying "thousands" instead of "billions" See the "Space" section. Here is what was said:

The congressman continued: "Is it possible that there was a civilization on Mars thousands of years ago?"

"So, the evidence is that Mars was different billions of years ago. Not thousands of years ago," Farley said.

"Billions, well. Yes," Rohrabacher said.

The fact that he asked about ancient civilization on Mars is significant. The thousands/millions error was the verbal equivalent of a typo that was quickly corrected. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

This edit is really all I need to see. Tolkienwarrior is WP:NOTHERE. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Tomwsulcer and Guy Macon, for addressing the problematic "Space & Question on ancient civilization on Mars" heading and resolving that potential and WP:UNDUE issue with reproducing source text, white space etc by another editor. And for the discussion, which resolved the proximate issue with WP:UNDUE presentation of content. I'm striking through my comments regarding WP:PROPAGANDA as not WP:AGF. Apologies for the misunderstanding. loupgarous (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Ewen Southby-Tailyour

Ewen Southby-Tailyour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone is posting incorrect statements about one of my clients - named above. They have been removed four times but keep on re-appearing. The simple fact is that the articles imply that my client was involved in a fraudulent company. When my client was involved both artists and the investors were happy as a number of joint exhibitions showed. When the company was eventually 'hijacked' by a criminal team my client was no longer involved as he had already been sacked to save his reputation. Any suggestion otherwise is libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:24FD:6100:698F:579E:81B2:674F (talk) 11:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, 2A00:23C4:24FD:6100:698F:579E:81B2:674F and welcome to WP. I presume that you are referring to this contribution at said article: ? First of all, it's important to note that your editing at this article is a conflict of interest due to your ties with the subject. See: WP: COI. However, you do have a right to bring these concerns to the article's Talk Page here: Talk Page and start a discussion about a possible BLP violation. I do see that the sources used (Telegraph) in backing the claims for this content are not reliable WP:RS and can / should be challenged. Furthermore, the content itself mentions other guilty parties: "The previous directors Christopher Sabin and Tobias Alexander Ridpath both now facing lengthy prison sentences for their involvement with Imperial Escrow Limited". This has nothing to do with the subject and leaves a bad association. The quote "Tailyour stated that he was only a Chairman in face and not involved in the running of the business although it is his position and the use of his face in marketing and events that many saw as a sign of a safe investment" is vague and someone misleading by speculation without proper reference quoting. If you have sources to back your claim, please open a discussion and present them on the Talk Page. In addition, there are other BLP issues that might need addressing: mentioning of non-notable children by name, occupation and location in the section Personal life. These need to go. Good luck. Maineartists (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, I noticed in the edit history that you have now used 3 separate IP accounts. This can be seen to be what is referred to as "Sockpuppetry" WP:SP. However, it is most likely "good faith" WP:AGF on your part. It might be best if you set up an actual account and log in with Misplaced Pages so that you will be taken seriously at noticeboards and on Talk Pages; since this issue will most likely become a discussion with a debate due to contested challenges for content. Just a suggestion. Maineartists (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• Editor assistance requested at Ewen Southby-Tailyour. Not only contentious material of a BLP but numerous IP accounts: . Attempted to start a discussion on Talk Page, which no editor has wished to partake. Latest removal of COI tag by suspicious SP . Extra set of eyes would be appreciated. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

To attempt to summarize the edit history (most recent at the top):

claims that he wasn't involved in this fraud, but has no references.

claims he was involved in the fraud. Until it is discussed on the talk page, it would be a BLP violation to restore this controversial claim. Of the 4 references, the only one that mentions Ewen is , and it doesn't claim he was involved in the fraud.

disputes claims regarding Ewen's actions during the Falklands War.

The page is being mostly edited by IP users and single-purpose editors; I'm requesting page protection. That may be sufficient to solve the issues. The IP editor acting on behalf of Ewen Southby-Tailyour should Contact OTRS if they see further problems. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected for one week but the sourcing is dire and that needs sorting out. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
• There is still a need for editors to take a look at this article given the paucity of sources, which are imo insufficient to support a BLP. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Tom Solomon (neurologist)

Article Tom Solomon (neurologist) article contains a conflict of interest, as a living person has edited their own Misplaced Pages article.

User Tsolomon (https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Tsolomon66), who is likely Tom Solomon, has been editing his own article based on the page history. Further to this, the page was created by member titled "Encephalitis Society". This user is named after a UK-based society which Tom Solomon is a key figure within. Regardless of whether this was Tom Solomon himself or a colleague, this further poses another conflict of interest based on the Misplaced Pages conflict of interest criteria outlined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

It would seem that the bulk of this page was created by Tom Solomon himself, or by a close colleague. It therefore seems appropriate that it is reviewed or removed.

I would further recommend you perform IP checks on those who have edited the article, as it is possible alt accounts have been used to further edit the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Throwaway6212 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Throwaway6212. This is a very strange request. The article was created and reviewed using the Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation process. User Tsolomon66 has edited only once. Conflict of interest is not a reason to remove an article if the subject is notable. If the subject is a key figure in the Encephalitis Society that is probably more reason to keep the article. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi StarryGrandma. The Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest page explicitly states that the page's subject, and employers or clients of said person cannot write or edit their own page. If I created a small foundation or society myself, would that entitle me or one of my underlings to create my Misplaced Pages page? No. The entire point of Misplaced Pages is to provide an unbiased and objective account of someone or something -- this page does not embody that. I did say review or remove the article, certainly the former is more sensible. However, the entire backbone of the page was likely created by the page's subject or an associate. I lack the experience with how to deal with this, but I am simply stating that it does pose a genuine conflict of interest. --Throwaway6212 (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a likely conflict of interest here. Two accounts have declared themselves to be the subject of the article, RunningMadProf and Tsolomon66. And the user EncephalitisSociety has a username connection as well. I have marked the article and talk page with relevant COI notices. The conflict of interest policy discourages people from editing articles about themselves, but currently there there is no policy that says someone "cannot write or edit their own page". There does appear to be a bit of puffery in the article, but that can be cleaned up with appropriate editing. Personally, I don't think deletion is warranted, but you can take it to WP:AFD if you wish. Deli nk (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

(ec)Tom Solomon meets the criteria for an article given in Misplaced Pages:Notability (academics). Conflict of interest can be troubling on Misplaced Pages and can involve editors who have a negative relationship with the subject as well as those who have a positive relationship. There have been cases of companies removing negative material from their own articles while adding such material to those of their competitors. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if Throwaway6212 also has an undisclosed COI, or otherwise has a problematic editing history. That is a very curious username. Where else have you edited? LadyofShalott 18:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

LadyofShalott: the user called Throwaway6212 has never edited anywhere except here! Neiltonks (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Neiltonks, that is true with that username. My suspicion though is that there are other (sockpuppet) accounts for the same person. LadyofShalott 02:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Uhuru Kenyatta

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

Recently elected, temporary page protection — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purtier (talk • contribs) 22:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

• Pending changes protection has been applied. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Ravi Shankar (poet)

First off, I have no vested interest in the subject nor do I know him personally. I'm responding to a pattern of vandalism that appears racially motivated by a particular editor ScrapIronIV. Multiple edits to this living poet's biography are being altered and reported as Sock Puppetry and COI. I would like to report this to an Administrator.

Shankar's contributions as a reviewer and editor are crucial aspects to his bio. As is his experience with the NYPD. If the criminal accusations (again according to my research he was only ever convicted of two MISDEAMENORS, so alleged crimes should not have a place) are allowed to remain, his experiences with the cops should be especially since he sued the city of New York and won a settlement and statement of wrongdoing. All of this is well-sourced (via Rediff, NPR, Hartford Courant). Additionally other primary source documentation from the New York Times, Best American Poetry, Open Magazine (India) is continuously being removed and called whitewashing for personal reasons.

Additionally my research has indicated that Shankar was never accused of "theft of school funds." This is something that FOX news reported a Politician as saying, which is not the same as fact. Such allegations never took place and cannot be listed as fact according to Wiki policy:

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. 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. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

I believe that if ScrapIronIV continues to persistently violate this policy, his editing privileges should be suspended. Additionally research has indicated that this editor is racially motivated and does not possess a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Literarybiographer (talk • contribs) 04:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

This apparent sockpuppet has been reported to WP:SPI. The sooner that gets addressed, the sooner an appropriate response can be made here. Being accused of racism is no small issue to me. I would like to see the "research" that indicates that I am "racially motivated", as stated above. Scr★pIron 16:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure about racial bias, but it does seem like legitimate primary source material continues to be removed for no apparent reason and relevant bio data continues to be suppressed by the same Editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TerribleTowel (talk • contribs) 10:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Both of these editors are confirmed sockpuppets of the same sockmaster, and have been indefinitely blocked. This issue can be closed now. Scr★pIron 12:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Sebastian Gorka

My problems: 1. Gorka's mother. The actual text is just libel: "Susan worked as a translator with David Irving, the discredited historian described by a judge as a "Holocaust denier … anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism". False and what has the judgement of David Irving from 2001 got to do with Susan Gorka of 1981? She was an INTERPRETER in 1981, when David Irving was writing a book about THE REVOLUTION OF HUNGARY IN 1956. She helped him with the translation during interviews with refugees. "On a practical level it would have been impossible to encompass the work and produce this history without the efforts of my interpreters Erika László, Susan Gorka and Carla Venchiarutti, and of Dr. Nicholas Reynolds who conducted some of the preparatory interview" Irving's own book:http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Uprising/intro.html Now, the current text gives the impression of her as a Holocaust denier.

2. The Order of Vitéz section: The actual version of the text is neither in chronological, nor in logical order. The whole thing is some confusing mess. I tried to clarify things. Both my edit on Susan Gorka and on this thing were revoked - without explanation.

3. The Hungarian Guard section: I tried to put Gorka's support in context by citing Gorka's own words, from the source Volunteer Marek himself used - but he/she deleted the most important parts - the reference to the anarchy in Hungary

Now, we have an article, which focuses more on the criticism of Gorka than him, and he and his mother are completely mixed up with nazis. This is argumentum ad Hitlerum fallacy, guilty by association fallacy, POV pushing, and lack of Neutrality.----Ltbuni (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

• I have removed the part about his mother, as it doesn't belong in his biography. Its not libel however in relation to David Irving as thanks to his own ill-judged libel case, he has been found in an English court to be 'an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.'. It is a BLP violation to smear Gorka by association like that though. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Good removal. That part is reliably sourced (to a Guardian article about Sebastian) but it does seem pretty WP:UNDUE. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank You!--Ltbuni (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

4. My other problem is that the supporters of Gorka are described with negative adjectives, while the opponents seem to be impartial. For example, in the Controversy section:

"Reynolds (he was previously described as professor) described Schöpflin as "an extreme right wing Hungarian Member of the European Parliament who recently advocated putting pigs heads on a fence on the Hungarian border to keep out Muslims." Both Mr. Andrew Reynolds (political scientist) and Mr György Schöpflin have their own wiki-articles - I think, that their ploitical stances should be inserted there. What is more, it is not neutral, if we call Mr. Reynolds a professor, but we omit that Mr. Schöpflin is a professor as well. So, either we refere to both of them as professors, or just link their articles.

The same problem occurs with Tibor Navracsics: the excessive use of adjectives: "member of the Hungarian Fidesz political party and former colleague of Gorka" (Section The Historical Order of Vitéz)

And my favourite: The Buzzfed describes him: "The same article describes him as being viewed in Hungary as a peddler of snake oil and a self-promoter" Last sentence of the Creditentials section.

5. The section "Historical Order of Vitéz". There are discrediting pieces of information there:

" It is claimed that his father was never a member of this order" - this order was disbanded in 1947. Gorka's dad was 15 then. He COULD NOT be a member of this group." My father was 9 when the war started" This original group was listed by the The US. But the Historical Order of Vitéz is NOT. It is not clear in the present form of the text.

It is mentionned at least three times, that Gorka's dad received his medal in 1979 - it is unnecessary.

There is a text, saying: Democratic Senators Ben Cardin, Dick Durbin and Richard Blumenthal sent a letter to the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security requesting that the DHS look into whether Gorka "illegally procured his citizenship" by omitting membership in Historical Vitézi Rend, which could have been grounds for keeping him out of the country. That is OK. Unfortunately, two days later Gorka issuead a statement, in response to this, in which he denied that he has ties to nazi things:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/19/donald-trump-aide-sebastian-gorka-denies-claims-has-links-hungarian/. This was also removed by Volunteer Marek, see this, in line 96

6. Support for Hungarian Guard. The article now says, that he wanted the Guard becuase the military of country is sick, etc. It is quite blurred and inaccurate. He, himself said in the interview of the Forward, that "If we look at the Swiss or Israeli example, when it is about a country, that is small and doesn't have a massive military, then a system can be based on a territorial defense ... In Amercia, the state supports them, giving old arms ... After the disturbances of Hungary, last Year, a need has risen, ... storming of the TV station (CUT, not understandable sentence)" Even though I refuse the Forward as a reliable source, because the original video was 11 minutes long - and now it is purposefully cut to 2 minutes - so despite all of these, We must NOT neglect, that he refered to the Riots of Hungary in 2006, and he cited Swiss, Israeli, American examples, where there are civil militia " to supplement the official military". Dropping out the context is pretty important here. In the current version, we basically do not know, what he really ment, only that the Guard was later banned. I tried to insert this, but also was first undone, then a cut version was inserted by VolunteerMArek

--Ltbuni (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sebastian_Gorka&diff=795865702&oldid=795861584. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sebastian_Gorka&diff=795444118&oldid=prev. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
3. https://jvbq.wordpress.com/2017/01/15/to-what-extend-can-the-hungarian-title-of-vitez-be-seen-as-a-designation-of-nobility/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
4. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/19/donald-trump-aide-sebastian-gorka-denies-claims-has-links-hungarian. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
5. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/sebastian-gorka-anti-semitism-hungarian-guard. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
6. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/sebastian-gorka-anti-semitism-hungarian-guard. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sebastian_Gorka&diff=795396547&oldid=795395045. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sebastian_Gorka&diff=795444118&oldid=795443139. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

JohnBob Carlos

This user 2601:58C:4201:D9C0:59F0:FB0D:5028:467C wrote defamatory information on this page on August 11, 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisdip1 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Since the edit was already undone by you I posted a notification on the IP's talk page. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Google's Ideological Echo Chamber

Google's Ideological Echo Chamber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article requires action to remove a WP:LABEL violation, however due to the editing status of the article (admin-only) I am unable to remove it myself. Specifically, the article uses the an extreme, contentious, and value-laden label when referring to an internet podcaster Stefan Molyneux in passing, referring to him as alt-right, i.e., a type of white nationalist.

There is a discussion raging on the talk page here, and the user who added the value-laden label in the first place (User:Volunteer Marek) is apparently the only user in support of keeping it --- not surprising given that this user's last 500 edits appear to be obsessed with attacking right wing politics. --Nanite (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

"Blah blah blah they won't let me push my POV in peace blah blah blah". The information is well sourced and pertinent and most of the objections come from single purpose newly created or sleeper accounts which have descended upon this article like it always happens with anything related to tech and "men's rights" (sic). The actual problem on the article is the overwhelming sock and meat puppetry from these accounts, who, it looks like are trying to find a new venue to re-litigate the whole GamerGate fiasco.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek WP:SPI exists for a purpose. If you are so certain that myself and every person that disagrees with you are sock puppets, go check. I asked on the talk page. If you won't do that, then you need to stop lobbing this baseless accusation. Skimming the talk page over the last few days when asked why the term "alt-right" to define Stefan Molyneux has encyclopedic value you're argument is basically to accuse the person asking of being a sock puppet. - Scarpy (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Scarpy, first, I never accused you of being a sock puppet. I specifically enumerated the accounts I was referring to - those with very few edits and a ... single purpose. And SPI only works if you have persistent sock puppetry with a sock master which can be identified. It's useless in cases of throw-away, fly-by-night, disruptive accounts which are created solely to brigade some votes and articles, then abandoned once the purpose has been served. And that's a huge problem on Misplaced Pages particularly on certain topics. Like anything having to do with American politics or "man's rights".Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek I don't have time to go edit for edit, but I will say while I did see you name some accounts specifically I also remember you making some general comments about people that disagreed with your POV there. It comes down to this--even if I grant you that there is a flood of SPA accounts appearing every time there is an article relating to American politics or "man's rights," that doesn't automatically invalidate the points made by any of those accounts. It's irrelevant and without evidence just pointlessly reduces the civility of the conversation. - Scarpy (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

No, not automatically. But it does add a ton of noise to the discussion and basically short circuits the consensus building process. Which is sort of the purpose of these accounts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know nor have an opinion of who is right or wrong here, but this all reads like repeating what brought the GG case to ArbCom, and there's clear lessons learned on all sides to avoid behavioral problems here. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

• I share Nanite's concerns. Molyneux's article doesn't label him alt-right but attributes it to WaPo and Politico. (There's some edit-warring at that article which I haven't followed closely.) The Google article under discussion instead calls him alt-right in wiki voice. There is also a thread at the NPOV Noticeboard about "alt-right" and similar ambiguous labels. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • That's an interesting proposal but I don't think it's necessary and maybe doesn't do what the proposer really wants. WP:LABEL already says "widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject", where I'm adding stress on the "widely". In this case we can look around at stories about Molyneux and see that he's variously referred to as "right wing", "libertarian", "podcaster", etc. but that "alt-right" is certainly not widely used. --Nanite (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the matter, but I have opened an RfC on the talk page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Another good point. And thanks KI. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Luigi Capozzi and BLPCRIME

Would other individuals consider looking at this article and the recent removals/reverts in light of WP:BLPCRIME? I have commented on the AfD already in favour of deletion, so I would prefer if someone else could offer a third-opinion between the two editors in dispute. I do personally think that some of the wording is a bit UNDUE, but welcome the thoughts of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyBallioni (talk • contribs) 22:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the content as it violates WP:BLPCRIME. There are criminal implications in the scandal, the subject (a priest) is not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN and there is no indication that a conviction has been secured. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Correct. Collect (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts as well. Thanks to all for additional eyes. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Jackie Shane

It would be helpful if experienced editors here could look at recent edits to that article and comment on the article talk page. Essentially, Shane is a former entertainer, long retired and in obscurity. Her (a transgendered person) recordings are about to be reissued, and the record company has interviewed her - the results of which are not yet published. It is claimed that much of the current article, based on generally good sources, is inaccurate, but the allegedly accurate story has not yet been published. Any advice? Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Ed Seeman

Ed Seeman

Hi, Sorry if this is the wrong place for this. I have found a possible future BOP policy violation here: here The attached PDF, which is clearly a violation, is being asked to be uploaded to wikipedia.

I think the page in question, Ed Seeman should be placed under creation protection to pre-emptively stop this violation.

TrueAnorak (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

no entiendo esta babasada pero un cabron vik+lado por ustedeses esta ala libre comiendo cofio usrredes no ven nadaç

aprendan vigilar gente de mucho riesgo y no coman  leña luego diere mas  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.226.237 (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

En inglés, por favor. O, si no, en español correcto. Y tambien, sin la palabra "cabron". --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Kim Davis

user:Antinoos69 continues to edit war on the Kim Davis article insisting that he has a consensus to place in the infobox as the lead photo an image of Kim Davis in which she partially obscures her face with her hand and to add insult to injury, the image has a different person more prominent than the subject of the article. While there is no objection to placing the image in the article in the section discussing her refusal to issue marriage licenses to LGBT people, user:Antinoos69 has been continuously edit warring to re-insert the image into the infobox, after being told several times that the photo is not reasonable for inclusion in the infobox (see big long discussion in article talk page. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Commented. Watchlisted. - Ryk72 11:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the situation. It is you who lacks consensus for your proposed edit. Only one other editor, of five or six, has agreed with you. You must achieve consensus for your controversial edits. That's how Misplaced Pages works. Until you achieve that consensus, I will continue to revert you. Antinoos69 (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Do not make statements that other editors can easily refute. Maineartists (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

2017 Barcelona attack

Input from editors familiar with WP:BLPCRIME issues is needed at Talk:2017 Barcelona attack#Is the Suspects section in violation of WP:BLP? (note: the section in question has since been renamed "Police operations"). TompaDompa (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Amanda Bynes

I am all out of reverts, and could do with someone sensible looking at this mess. To those who are unaware of Amanda Bynes, briefly: she was a promising actress who stopped work due to severe mental health issues. Her breakdown over several years was very public and leapt on by the tabloid press in a most unedifying way. Bynes hasn't acted since 2012, I think. This recent article gives an overview of the saga:

In the Twitter age, her breakdown was the first that occurred almost entirely in the public eye, with updates coming on a minute-to-minute basis. In 2007, when Lindsay Lohan was arrested for DUI, the news took days to reverberate—seven years later, news on Bynes took only seconds to devour. There were more impulse reactions, less perspective, and in the race to provide content on Trending Topics, levity was the default. Bynes was mocked and frequently called “crazy,” as if the word didn’t have any serious implications. The actress’ struggles, in no part helped by the fact that she wasn’t working, were a tiny snowball at the top of a mountain, and with every snicker and decision to funnel uncomfortable concern into a funny list about her “craziest tweets,” it grew bigger and raced down the slope at an unstoppable velocity.

There's also this, "Amanda Bynes and the double standard of mental illness":

Bynes’s life is proof we still gawk and grimace at those who suffer in plain sight.

Sundayclose and RektGoldfish have both repeatedly added the following material to Byne's biography under the heading "Legal issues":

In March 2012, Bynes was stopped and ticketed by police for talking on a cell phone while driving. A month later, she was arrested and charged with driving under the influence (DUI) after side-swiping a police car in West Hollywood. On September 4, 2012, Bynes was charged for two alleged hit and run incidents, one occurring in April and the other in August. The hit and run charges were dismissed in December 2012 following a financial settlement between Bynes and the victims. On February 24, 2014, the DUI charge was dropped and Bynes was sentenced to three years of probation for reckless driving as part of a plea deal. Bynes' driver's license was suspended some time before September 6, 2012, by the California Department of Motor Vehicles. On September 16, Bynes was cited for driving with a suspended license, and her car was impounded. In May 2013, Bynes pleaded no contest to the charge, and was sentenced to three years' probation. Her license was restored in April 2014.

On May 23, 2013, Bynes was arrested at her home in Manhattan for criminal possession of marijuana, attempted tampering with evidence, and reckless endangerment. According to a prosecutor at Bynes' arraignment, police observed Bynes throwing a bong from the window of her 36th floor apartment. Bynes claimed that the alleged bong was actually a vase. Following her arrest, Bynes underwent a psychiatric evaluation at a hospital before she was processed at the police station. The case against Bynes was dismissed in June 2014. On July 22, 2013, Ventura County sheriff's deputies detained Bynes in front of a stranger's house in Thousand Oaks, California, where she had allegedly started a small fire in the driveway, and had her hospitalized under a 72-hour mental-health evaluation hold. Bynes' parents filed for conservatorship of their daughter shortly after her hospitalization began. On August 9, Bynes' mother was granted a temporary conservatorship over Bynes' affairs, including her medical care, as well as control over her finances, after the judge agreed that Bynes had a "lack of capacity to give informed consent to medical care." On September 30, Bynes was transferred from UCLA Medical Center to receive "specialized treatment in a private facility outside of Los Angeles."

In December 2013, Bynes was released from treatment to her parents. On September 28, 2014, Bynes was arrested for her second DUI. On October 10, 2014, Bynes was hospitalized in Pasadena, California, and placed on a temporary psychiatric hold after she made accusations via Twitter that her father sexually abused her as a child; shortly after she tweeted that her father had not molested her, but she claimed he implanted a microchip in her brain that forced her to make the accusation. Her psychiatric hold was later extended. On October 22, Bynes' mother received conservatorship of her daughter once again; on October 30, Bynes left the psychiatric facility early.

References

1. Grossberg, Josh. "Amanda Bynes arrested for DUI after hitting cop car". NBCNews. Retrieved August 24, 2012.
2. "Amanda Bynes Busted for Drunken Driving – E! Online". Uk.eonline.com. April 6, 2012. Retrieved April 12, 2012.
3. ^ "Amanda Bynes' driver's license suspended by DMV". The Los Angeles Times. September 6, 2012. Retrieved September 8, 2012.
4. "Amanda Bynes settlement: Hit-and-run charges dismissed". LA Times. Retrieved December 29, 2012.
5. "Amanda Bynes gets probation in DUI plea deal". CNN. Retrieved February 24, 2014.
6. "Amanda Bynes's Car Impounded". People. Retrieved September 16, 2012.
7. "Amanda Bynes sentenced to three years probation". CBS News. May 10, 2013. Retrieved September 4, 2013.
8. ^ Corriston, Michelle (September 29, 2014). "Amanda Bynes Arrested for DUI". People. Time Inc. Retrieved September 29, 2014.
9. "Amanda Bynes' bong arrest could bring more legal woes in L.A." Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 24, 2013.
10. "Amanda Bynes released from jail after being arrested for throwing bong out of NYC apartment window, faces possible probation violation". Daily News. New York. Retrieved May 24, 2013.
11. "Amanda Bynes Is Arrested in New York". People. Retrieved May 23, 2013.
12. "Amanda Bynes' New York bong-tossing case dismissed". CBS News. June 30, 2014.
13. Winton, Richard (July 23, 2013). "Amanda Bynes' mental health hold after fire could last two weeks". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 2, 2013.
14. "Amanda Bynes hospitalized for mental health evaluation after allegedly starting fire". CBS News. Retrieved July 23, 2013.
15. Lee, Ken (July 26, 2013). "Amanda Bynes Case: Judge Delays Decision to Grant Parents Legal Control". People.
16. CBNews.com (August 9, 2013). "Amanda Bynes' mother granted conservatorship over her daughter". CBS.
17. Rouse, Wade (August 9, 2013). "Amanda Bynes 'Gravely Disabled' – Doctors Granted Emergency Conservatorship". People.
18. Eggenberger, Nicole (September 30, 2013). "Amanda Bynes Is "Making Great Strides Towards Recovery," Says Parents". Us Weekly. Retrieved October 2, 2013.
19. Ross, Barbara; Corky Siemaszko (October 1, 2014). "Amanda Bynes agrees to weekly counseling sessions to avoid jail in bong-tossing case". Daily News. New York City. Retrieved January 10, 2014.
20. Ramisetti, Kirthana (September 29, 2014). "Amanda Bynes arrested for DUI". New York Daily News. NYDailytimes.com. Daily News, L.P. Retrieved September 29, 2014.
21. Blum, Haley. "Reports: Amanda Bynes hospitalized, placed on psych hold". USA Today. Retrieved 11 October 2014.
22. McNiece, Mia (October 10, 2014). "Amanda Bynes Checks into a California Treatment Center". People. Time Inc. Retrieved October 10, 2014.
23. Corriston, Michele. "Amanda Bynes's Mom Is Her Conservator Again". People. Retrieved 30 October 2014.
24. Winton, Richard (October 31, 2015). "Amanda Bynes leaves psychiatric facility, slams parents on Twitter". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 5 November 2014.

A blow-by-blow and primary-sourced account of her troubles, with no perspective, no attempt to summarize or weave it into the story of her career. No decent secondary sources. The article as it stands just reflects the callous disregard shown by many media outlets. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is filled with those who follow the precepts of the unnamed editor quoted in User:Collect/BLP and such material is, in my opinion, detrimental to the encyclopedia ab initio. That editor's claim is: "My motivations are immaterial, but if you have to know, I delight in adding frank and full details of misbehaviours to pages on so-called "celebs", many of whom are absolute scoundrels or hypocrites, or worse, under the glossy veneer. But I welcome people like Y, who are on the subject's payroll or close friends with the subject, as long as they add properly sourced puffery to the page. What puzzles me is that there seems to be some unspoken sentiment among a lot of wikipedia editors that no matter what the celeb does in real life, we need to hide it unless the facts were reported by Moses on the tablets brought down from Mount Sinai. Wake up, my fellow editors! We are not paid to shield these people from the consequences of their own misdeeds. Free your heads from the American celeb-worship cargo cult religion." To which dirt-flinging principles I specifically demur. Collect (talk) 12:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• • Huh? I think what has been written is a decent summary. It's certainly not a blow-by-blow - go to TMZ or Perez Hilton and look her up - there are about a million bizarre incidents, dancing bizarrely in that store, starting the fire in someone's driveway, covering her poor dog in gasoline, saying she wanted Drake to "murder her vagina", etc. And yes, tabloids covered her breakdown, but so did mainstream media ie CNN, LA Times, etc. It is not our place AT ALL to "add perspective" (WP:OR) or weave it into "the story of her career." Her illness does not belong in any "story of her career." She retired from acting because of health problems, the end. The opinion piece in Macleans is not about Amanda Bynes' life but how perception of mental illness but how Twitter makes it easier to make fun of people. It belongs belongs nowhere near an encyclopedic entry on Bynes. The columnist who wrote it is not a qualified expert (ie psychiatrist, sociologist, etc) just a fairly insipid columnist who hates all Internet meanies and wants people to stop insulting horrible politicians but also feels strongly that people should stop saying flattering things about Justin Trudea's yoga pose. I've seen better opinion pieces in college newspapers. So to sum up, Hillbillyholiday, there is a good reason why you keep getting reverted. —Мандичка 😜 13:36, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Having read through all of that, I agree with Hillbillyholiday. By all means, document she has mental health issues - it explains why she hasn't continued her career in earnest, but to go into the bit-by-bit detail is just far too close to a tabloid newspaper. The basic tenet of WP:BLP is "do no harm", so a trim is absolutely necessary in this case. PS: It turns out I pretty much said all this before at Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Amanda Bynes/1 anyway. Ritchie333 13:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Ritchie and Collect here: I restored the removal of the legal issues section, as there appears to be at least a working rough consensus at BLPN that as it currently stands, it should not be in there. Specific instances can be restored if consensus is gained for their inclusion, which per WP:ONUS is how it should be anyway. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Concur with User:Ritchie333's statement "By all means, document she has mental health issues," which I would presume would include the public-record arrests, but without extraneous details. There's not really that much. There's a little the overdetail, which I blockquote below, that I think can go: We only need to say she was arrested for such-and-such and this date, and the charges were dismissed. It's immaterial that she threw a bong/vase out the window or had a psych eval — especially in light of the charges being dismissed.

According to a prosecutor at Bynes' arraignment, police observed Bynes throwing a bong from the window of her 36th floor apartment. Bynes claimed that the alleged bong was actually a vase. Following her arrest, Bynes underwent a psychiatric evaluation at a hospital before she was processed at the police station.

We also don't need "after the judge agreed that Bynes had a 'lack of capacity to give informed consent to medical care.' " That's essentially the reason for any such conservatorship, so it's redundant and unnecessary.

Finally, the following is also clearly violative of WP:BLPCRIME, since the father, a private citizen, was never charged with anything. We don't print allegations without formal charges. This is so violative it needs to go immediately and I am removing it under BLPCRIME: ", after she made accusations via Twitter that her father sexually abused her as a child; shortly after she tweeted that her father had not molested her, but she claimed he implanted a microchip in her brain that forced her to make the accusation. " --Tenebrae (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, I see all of this section was removed. No: When formal charges / court orders for a public figure are filed, and then reported in multiple WP:RS sources, we include them. It is whitewashing not to do so. Any responsible biographer writing a book would include these things. I've noted what seems like overdetail and BLPCRIME vios. Otherwise, the material is written in straightforward, reportorial, non-sensationalized fashion and is a pertinent, vital part of this public figure's biography. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae: yes, if you see my edit summary and reasoning I am actually not opposed to including some of the material. I removed it because it had all been challenged above and there seems to be an agreement here that it needs to be toned down. Combining the BLP principles with WP:ONUS we should work towards agreement on including specific instances and then restore those. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

And I think being ticketed (the first sentence) can go. Being ticketed is extraordinarily common and non-notable. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The question here that is probably the most pressing is how to deal with all of the dismissed charges: the hit and run and the bong incident both appear to have resulted in dismissals. She is a public figure, so BLPCRIME is a bit more lenient here than it otherwise would be, but without convictions she is assumed innocent of them. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Wikimandia, Ritchie333, and Tenebrae: I've restored some of the content that from this discussion it seems everyone would find uncontroverial to include: things with secured convictions that aren't petty (no tickets or suspended licenses). I've left out anything that did not secure a conviction or have direct relevance to her hospitalization. I think we probably need additional discussion before deciding what to include, if anything, on those. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm still not too comfortable with that. While the choice of sources are not downright awful (CBS and People, mostly), I wonder if we could just make an effort to see if the major broadsheets (eg: New York Times, Washington Post) have got anything, and try and get something out of them? Ritchie333 14:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems like Sundayclose, RektGoldfish and Drmies may also have an interest since they were involved and the discussion is happening here rather than the article talk page. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ritchie, some of the sourcing is to the LA Times, which while not the NYT is a significant enough paper that I think its justified. People isn't the Daily Mail, but it certainly isn't my favourite source. If someone wants to do a news archive search, and go about it like you suggested, I'd also be fine with it, and fine with the reversion of that section until we can find a consensus version. I was attempting to see if we could get agreement on what to include as a minimum, and have no problem with it being taken out per BRD. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'm fine with TonyBallioni's changes as a start. My main objection was to Hillbillyholiday's removal of almost the entirety of the "Personal life" section with no attempt at discussion and no effort to simply trim the information. Sundayclose (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Excellent job, TonyBallioni. I would suggest two reinsertions (one of them only partial)

On September 4, 2012, Bynes was charged for two alleged hit and run incidents, one occurring in April and the other in August. The hit and run charges were dismissed in December 2012 following a financial settlement between Bynes and the victims.

and

On May 23, 2013, Bynes was arrested at her home in Manhattan for criminal possession of marijuana, attempted tampering with evidence, and reckless endangerment. The case was dismissed in June 2014.

The reason is that these were formal charges that resulted in formal, legal resolutions. (They were also so widely reported and highly publicized that it seems futile and unencyclopedic to ignore.) --Tenebrae (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Frank Serpico

The first paragraph contains a personal opinion that should be removed. I do not feel comfortable removing it myself. Here is the offending opinion. "Mr Serpico gave a speech and stood with NYPD police officers on 19 August 2017 in New York on the bank of the Hudson River at the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge in support of former NFL player Colin Kaepernick, who was ostracized by the NFL governing body for heroically taking a moral stand against rampant police brutality, and street killings."

There is no factual evidence that he was ostracized by the NFL governing body, nor is there any fact that this was a heroic moral stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumaryu (talk • contribs) 19:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Your right this was very blatant bias, I think I fixed the worst of it with this edit . Tornado chaser (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Questions of veracity or verifiability of the text (even as amended) aside, it is WP:UNDUE for inclusion in the lead section. - Ryk72 22:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It has since been entirely removed from the lede, and rightly so. Maineartists (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Michael Capponi

A few editors have been editing his page and attempting to paint him in a negative light, which I believe violates wikipedia's neutral tone. They changed his Early Life to Early and Personal Life, which I think is another violation. (I edited it back). His Early Life no longer has a neutral tone, when you look at the blue, hyperlinked words. These words only have to do only with drug use. I believe one of these editors is paid, since he seems to edit pages of subjects and companies that have the ability to pay him. I know wikipedia is not supposed to be involved with gossip. This editor has tried linking this person to a very bad person. The editor edited his page in a way that links negative, gossipy sources as the first reference. I'm trying to bring some neutrality back to the page. Any help or second sets of eyes would be useful. This editor tends to have issues editing other pages as well. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you! ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settherecord (talk • contribs) prev) 23:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I just read the entier article, I see no major neutrality issues with the article in it's current state, any POV there is in his favor, but overall the article seems decent, (there are some instanced of poor writing/grammar and formatting, but I don't see any major POV issues). Tornado chaser (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Paul Michael Glaser

The 'References' section has a Korean website listed for Glaser's 'books' and 'poetry'. There's some kind of block, which limits who can edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.239.77 (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Japanese, not Korean; but yes, references are no longer there. I'll add deadlink tags and we'll hope for an archived copy. - Ryk72 00:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Birth name of Felix Sater

The article Felix Sater currently gives Sater's name as "Felix Henry Sater (born Felix Mikhailovich Sheferovsky; Russian: Феликс Михайлович Шеферовский; March 2, 1966)". As far as I can tell from English language sources, this is not correct. The New York Times gives Sater's birth name as "Haim Felix Sater" but notes that he "Americanized it" to Felix Henry Sater" in the 1990s. That's what our article said up until May when it was changed to the current version by User:Wikimandia, using a Russain language source. I have found other places that use the Haim Sater, but no other reliable sources that use "Felix Mikhailovich Sheferovsky". Sater's father is Mikhael Sheferovsky AKA Michael Sater, so the Mikhailovich makes sense, but I am unable to confirm it. I am reluctant to change the birth name since I can't read the Russian source. What should I do? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• @World's Lamest Critic: It's not possible for his birth name to have been Haim Felix Sater. They do not have middle names in Russia; patronymics are required by law on the birth certificate. Your middle name is your father's first name plus the suffix - ovich/evich/etc for males and -ovna/evna/etc for females. In the 18th century it could have been possible for Jews and other ethnic minorities who spoke other languages such as Yiddish to not follow that custom, but it would not have been possible in the Soviet Union in 1966, when he was born, especially in Moscow. (And it's also extremely unlikely his birth name would have been Chaim (Haim), as discrimination against Jews was immense at this time, and even Christian names such as Kristina etc were not really an option in the Soviet era.) I don't know what the NYT's source was as to that being his actual birth name, but it was probably Felix himself. Given that he is a convicted fraud and was eager to not be associated with a father who was an infamous capo for Semyon Mogilevich, it is not surprising he changed not only last name but also his patronymic, essentially erasing his connection to his father. Any claims in the article that are sourced directly to him should be taken with a grain of salt. For example, his history as an FBI informant against Italian organized crime is no secret, but in interviews with Russian press he claims this is not really true and that the FBI sent him on top secret assignments in Afghanistan where he was posing as an arms dealer while hunting Osama bin Laden, which is completely absurd. —Мандичка 😜 03:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • PS OK, the Russian-language BBC service did an article on Felix in July and they discussed the changing of the name. The author is Russian journalist Vladimir Kozlovsky who has been covering him for 15+ years or something, and Felix was absolutely not born Sater, because Kozlovsky mentions how many years ago he was confused by his new last name, and asking Felix at the time why he started calling himself "Sater" and his reply was that the family's name used to be "Satarov" once upon a time. He came to the US via Israel so he would have had a new passport issued there that would have allowed him a religious first name such as Chaim. Kozlovsky has been covering the Russian mafia since the early 1990s and is a respected journalist. In the BBC article, he explains that Felix's next name change, from Sater to Satter, was to prevent business cohorts from finding about his criminal past via Google. He talks about his name change a bit more in that he was charged as "John Doe" because he was an informant etc (I believe he is discussing it in the light that legal documents need to be brought forward to confirm what his name and aliases are, like in the court cases against his dad) and he also mentions that his sister was not using the Sheferovsky/Sheferovskaya name either. —Мандичка 😜 03:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
    • @Wikimandia: notwithstanding that the Haim Felix Sater name is "not possible", what does the Russian source actually say about Sater's birth name? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Well, the main point of the article is reminiscing about Trump's cohorts in the Russian/former USSR criminal underworld all the crap that went down in the 1990s with Sater's now dead (supposedly) dad Mikhail Sheferovsky's criminal activities in NY until his arrest in 2000 for extortion (he includes screenshot of court case). So anyway Kozlovsky says he remembers talking to Mikhail Sheferovsky around this time and asking him why he has an alias of Sater. And Mikhail claims the family used to be Saterov, and Kozlovsky says Sheferovsky's daughter is now Regina Sater, and that Felix was named Felix Sater when he emigrated from Israel as a little kid, but that he's also gone by Satter for the Google purpose I mentioned above. Unfortunately the name thing was just a sidenote, and at no point does he say flat out he was born Felix Mikhailovich Sheferovsky, because it's a Russian article so obvious because Mikhail Sheferovsky is well known and Felix is his son, so patronymic is obvious. But he doesn't actually use the patronymic because you only refer to patronymics in very formal speech when either writing formally or speaking formally to someone/about someone who is your superior/your elder, ie your teacher, your coach, your esteemed shirtless leader Vladimir Vladimirovich. Sorry for rambling. I see a bunch of new articles about Sater since I worked on his article so I will try to find one something resembling a factsheet that actually says what his real name at birth was. (Btw I love your user name. Hah.) —Мандичка 😜 16:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
        • Sorry Wikimandia, I was asking about this source from New Times, not the BBC one. Google translate was enough for me to get the gist of that one. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
          • @World's Lamest Critic: Oh I apologize, I didn't know you were talking about that one. That's also by Vladimir Kozlovsky, after Trump won the primary. It's similar to the BBC one but goes into more detail of their arrests, Sater informing on the Genovese crime family, etc. There is no mention of "birth name" but just a quick explanation with the same anecdote, that Sheferovsky told Kozlovsky that the name Sater is derived from Satarov, which could be possible, but of course they don't go into when they changed the name from Satarov to Sheferovsky, or at what point they became Sater. The court case of the father shows that his name is Sheferovsky and Sater is an alias. Both of Kozlovsky's articles mention that Sheferovsky is well known and NY everyone knew him as Misha Sheferovsky. It's possible they started using the name Sater because it's simpler than Sheferovsky and they wanted to assimiliate outside the Russian community in the business world, but it's also possible Felix and his sister became Sater because the Sheferovsky name became notorious. Unfortunately the court documents about Sater are all classified, so his legal name isn't clear, but there is a lawsuit (I think from WaPo or NYT) to get them unsealed. I have not been able to find any naturalization records for them in the USA, which should be available, since they arrived in the 70s. Those forms typically have three questions as to the name: 1) Your birth name; 2) The name you used when upon first entering the USA; and 3) What you would like your name to be changed to (optional). "Who exactly exactly is Felix Sater" is actually a very interesting idea for an article and I wouldn't be surprised if something like that comes up, with someone digging into the records in Russia, Israel and NY. As for his article here, I just tried to leave it as basic stub, since pretty much everything available goes into his mafia connections, arrests for fraud and assault, and all the different versions of what he claims he has been doing at Bayrock and for the Trump organization. So I have left the article alone. Sater is a very key part of the Russian investigation by both the feds and NY state, and I think we are going to get more and more about him, since The FT reported last month that he cut a deal and is cooperating with the international money laundering operation. I try to avoid all Trump things on Misplaced Pages so I'm not sure what discussions there are about all these figures and the investigation outside the Russian interference election, and the investigation into the criminal activity and money laundering. So, to get back to his birth name in the article here, I will keep looking for another source about his full birth name, and if I can't find it, we might also contact some people from Wikiproject Russia for their input. I feel like any mention of the Haim Felix Sater name (which originated in the 2007 NY Times article, when he was trying to pass himself off as a legit businessman) is a problem because we would have to note that this is so dubious it's false, either through a mistake from the NY Times, or because Felix told them that and he's a liar. —Мандичка 😜 03:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
            • DUH!! I am so sorry, I forgot I am the one who added the New Times article as the source. I am completely drawing a blank as to why I did that, especially since Press Reader is annoying and that article is available in normal format here, unless maybe it wasn't available in normal format then. I am so sorry for all the confusion. I may have chosen the wrong URL and to use that article as a citation for something else. I will get back to you. —Мандичка 😜 03:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@World's Lamest Critic: Found it! If you search for "урожденный Шеферовский" ("born Sheferovsky") there are quite a few hits. I chose the two best sources to include - the first the famous post-election interview "Феликс Сатер, урожденный Шеферовский" ("Felix Sater, born Sheferovsky") and second one from Gazeta.ru - they misspell it as Sherefovsky but it's clearly a mistake as you can see if you google that spelling "Феликс Сатер, урожденный Феликс Шерефовский" "Felix Sater, born Felix Sherefovsky). Hopefully this suffices. —Мандичка 😜 11:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Britney Spears

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

Is it acceptable to describe someone having a "public meltdown" in Misplaced Pages's voice? I would've thought it quite obviously is not, but two seemingly experienced editors (Flyer22 Reborn and FlightTime) disagree. Flyer is willing to discuss on the talkpage at least, but FlightTime is edit-warring to restore the label: --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Softlavender recently reverted you at that article as well, and may also have something to state about this aspect of the revert.

I'll repeat what I wrote on the talk page: "'I don't view stating that Spears had a public meltdown as a WP:BLP violation; it is well-documented as a public meltdown. Furthermore, stating 'was inspired the singer's public meltdown' is specific while 'was inspired by Spears' is vague. But I don't strongly object to this (your) wording. As for using 'public meltdown' in Misplaced Pages's voice, perhaps you would be interested in this RfC at the WP:NPOV talk page, where a number of editors are clear that we follow the sources with WP:Due weight and often do not need WP:In-text attribution. Furthermore, Spears has commented on the breakdown, or rather 'the breakdown years'; she acknowledges it. She does not disagree that a meltdown/breakdown occurred at some point. So, no, given that and the sources that cover the matter, I can't view it as a WP:BLP violation. Either way, I've already noted that I'm not strongly opposed to your rewording on that bit." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Additional comment: EdJohnston has also stated that he does not consider the matter a WP:BLP violation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Well Ed's opinion was more in relation to the edit being exempt from 3RR: "I don't see that calling Spears' behavior 'a very public meltdown' is a violation of BLP, certainly not for the purposes intended by the BLP exception to 3RR. The 3RR BLP exception is intended for things like unsourced defamation where the offending material is so flagrant it needs to be removed immediately without waiting for a discussion. In this case the behavior of Britney Spears is not in dispute and the only question is how to give it the most apt description, which is a matter of WP:UNDUE. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Edit warring#Exemptions partly concerns whether or not something is a BLP violation. If "meltdown" was a BLP violation, your reverts on that aspect would have been justified. Liked EdJohnston stated, "In this case the behavior of Britney Spears is not in dispute," which is similar to what I stated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we should both disengage here. Perhaps there are experts in mental health issues here who might have information about professional use of "meltdown" as a descriptor. Personally, I haven't seen it in any textbooks. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

You can ask at WP:Med, which is a WikiProject I'm a part of. But in terms of sourcing, I do not think that WP:MEDRS sources, or a review of medical sources for "public meltdown" or "meltdown," are necessary in this case. The issue is here whether or not there is a WP:BLP violation. I am fine with ceasing commentary and letting others weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

That's some good advice Flyer22 Reborn, but in my POV, it is not a simple question of "sticking to the sources"; the term "public meltdown" seems pretty informal, too colloquial, just take a look.."The Sun" or "Daily Mail", some sections of the Spears article seem to be an "E! News report" at times; I think some copyedit (as Hillbillyholiday did) is really good to make the articles more encyclopaedic and less tabloidy. FinalPoint1988 (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

What does tabloid sources using the term meltdown have to do with reliable sources using the term for Spears's case and/or Spears acknowledging that a breakdown/meltdown occurred? That non BLP-compliant sources use the terminology has no bearing on whether or not the there is a WP:BLP violation in this specific case. Non BLP-compliant sources use a lot of terminology that BLP-compliant sources use. So what? Also, E! News is a BLP-compliant source. I understand that you like Hillbillyholiday and think that Hillbillyholiday is doing a lot of good, but my views on Hillbillyholiday's editing does not align with yours. Massive cuts are not copyedits. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Using "illicit" to describe Letourneau's interaction with Fualaau at Mary Kay Letourneau article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau#Regarding "illicit". A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

2 unsourced academic genealogy articles

See:

• Academic genealogy of theoretical physicists
• Academic genealogy of computer scientists

These two articles are both almost entirely unsourced. Not everyone is living but some are, and these appear to be massive BLP and WP:OR violations.... what should we do with these? I kind of think they should be deleted. Jytdog (talk) Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• I have to say I agree. I know deletion is not cleanup, but I'm questioning the notability of these. It appears to be WP:OR entirely. I can possibly see the point of Academic genealogy as an article, but not spinoff articles. Is there significant coverage to support the existence of the articles? I also notice that the article Academic genealogy only exists on other-language wikis in Bulgarian, Esperanto and Portuguese, and seem to be basic translations of the English article. I point this out because scientific articles on notable topics always have articles in dozens of languages because science is universal. The lack of other articles makes me a bit skeptical as to how notable a topic this is. —Мандичка 😜 15:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Emily Bazelon

Unnecessary and questionably sourced phrase: "a liberal / progressive"

The sources for this characterization are 1) Reddit, and 2) a self-published blog post by self-described ethicist Jack Marshall, "president and founder of ProEthics, and personally develops its original training programs."

Anonymous Comments on Reddit Are Not Reliable Sources' The Reddit citation refers to an entire thread, not a specific comment. Uses of the word "liberal" is used by anonymous commenters, not Bazelon herself. There are no uses of "progressive" on the thread. What are the liberal/progressive label based on? Do anonymous Reddit comments qualify as reliable sources?

Source Has Questionable Credentials and Relies More on His Assumptions, Not Facts Jack Marshall labels Bazelon a "liberal" based on her mischaracterization of a New York judge. His draws this opinion from her unsupported accusation that the judge was a "conservative judicial activist." As a blogger, Marshall does well-enough, but as a ethicist his judgement is hasty and relies on his questionable authority as an ethicist. Is he an authority on journalistic ethics?

Emily Bazelon may very well be a liberal/progressive, but the inclusion of this label leads the reader to question her motivations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19B:4000:39EE:5554:257D:3B03:F11E (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• I agree and removed it. The sources are ridiculous, plus it's WP:UNDUE for it to be included in the lede. Not even Bill Maher has political viewpoint in the lede. —Мандичка 😜 19:30, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Gwen_Shamblin#Libel suits filed against Remnant Fellowship critics

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

This entire section is original research sourced to primary sources, court documents hosted on the website of a subject of the lawsuits. I have tried to remove it twice and have both times been reverted. Can a senior editor take a look? 173.165.156.203 (talk) 03:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Robert H Abel

Robert H. Abel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

deceased, unfortunately. April 14, 2017, hadley, MA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:194:837F:BF59:ED7E:63CE:D034:C76E (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• The only source I can find is this one - not the best. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

That is the site of an actual funeral home, and does not strike me as likely to be faked or mistaken about their client's names. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks a rather minor writer, so we may never get a "proper" obituary. Edwardx (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

nevin carr

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

Please, remove the picture depicting Bill Nye from this wikipedia page at the request of Nevin Carr. I have edited the page myself several times to no avail. This adds no value and does not adequately depict the individual to whom it relates. Please, respect my wishes and take this picture off of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fieldingb (talk • contribs) 19:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fieldingb: Misplaced Pages does not normally edit articles to match the desires of their subjects. (That's assuming the request actually came from Carr—we have no way to verify a request made by an account.) The image is free, and if the community decides the image adds value to the article, I don't see any violation of BLP to include it. —C.Fred (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Duncan Macmillan (playwright)

Duncan Macmillan (playwright) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've made recent detailed edits to this page which are being repeatedly reversed by someone claiming falsely that the information is inaccurate or personal (it is all sourced from reputable sources online). Trandodit (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

And you have repeatedly reinserted them, Trandodit, which is edit warring on both your parts. Please use the article talk page as the first place to discuss such issues. There has been no such discussion on the article talk page as yet. DES _{DESiegel Contribs} 23:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Vic Moore

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

Need help with this page, in particular the "Speed Test Drill and Controversy" section. Basic issue is that apparently Bruce Lee told Vic Moore to block his punches, but Vic Moore was unable to do so. Vic Moore claims that he managed to block all the punches except one which did not come close to hitting. Yet others claim that Vic Moore is lying. The section is in my opinion pretty bad, especially the sources, which barely satisfy WP:RS. What is a good way to handle the Lee / Moore dispute? Banedon (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Nnamdi Kanu

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

Could we please have additional competent eyes on this BLP article that has become the play-ground for this IP editor (and this one, probable the same person) who keeps on adding unsourced material into the article while at the same time removing sourced material from the said article? This person doesn't reply to well-meant messages left on his talk page. Reporting him to WP:AVN resulted in me getting blocked :) even though I used Exemption no. 7 of the edit-warring policy. Additional info on the subject matter can be found here. I simply don't have the time to keep on reverting the disruptive edits on the said article. Thank you. 89.14.255.174 (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Durgesh Kaushik

https://en.wikipedia.org/Durgesh_Kaushik

Issue: Non-notability of the living person on whom the article is based; Sources appear to be promoted and non-objective in nature;

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution