Misplaced Pages

:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:40, 7 March 2015 editChrisGualtieri (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers457,369 edits →Cwobeel blocked: re← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:34, 31 December 2024 edit undoHorse Eye's Back (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users51,592 edits →Pretendian 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Misplaced Pages noticeboard for discussion of biographies of living people}}
<!--{{User:MiszaBot/config
<noinclude>{{Pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>{{/Header}}
|archiveheader = {{archivemainpage|WP:BLPN}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K
| archiveheader = {{NOINDEX}} {{archivemainpage|WP:BLPN}}
|counter = 187
| maxarchivesize = 290K
|minthreadsleft = 1
| counter = 365
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 1
|algo = old(5d)
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
| algo = old(9d)
}}-->
| archive = Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive%(counter)d
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
}}
|header={{archivemainpage}}
|archiveprefix=Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive
|format=%%i
|age=90
|numberstart=187
|minkeepthreads= 1
|maxarchsize= 200000
}}{{Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Header}}]]]{{NOINDEX}}__FORCETOC__ __NEWSECTIONLINK__


==Nick Griffin==
{{la|Nick Griffin}}


== ] ==
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nick_Griffin&diff=646793119&oldid=646333056


the question I want to ask is does Griffin belong in these groups? Is he a noteworthy criminal from London and is he only one of two noteworthy criminals from Suffolk? - the other one being a footballer who got a sentence of four and a half years in prison for rape - Griffin has only received a nine month sentence that was a suspended sentence given for - In 1998, Griffin was convicted of violating section 19 of the ], relating to the offence of 'publishing or distributing racially inflammatory written material' in issue 12 of ''The Rune'', published in 1996.? https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Criminals_from_Suffolk Is he really for this crime one of only 22 noteworthy criminals from London, this list which includes mass murderers and famous gangsters https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Criminals_from_London ? I have now linked the user that added these groups to the article and I have decided it's important and so I have removed the groups from Griffin as disputed while discussion occurs, The basic question is, can or should anyone that has been convicted of a minor offence be added to these criminal groups? Griffin is in this group, which I don't oppose at all - I see a lot of missing names there, please assist to expand that group, there are many missing https://en.wikipedia.org/Category:British_politicians_convicted_of_crimes ] (]) 07:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:Griffin was guilty of the crime of 'publishing or distributing racially inflammatory written material', as you say. Why is he then not a criminal? I don't understand why you're disputing this -- you even say you 'don't oppose at all'. ] (]) 08:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
::I oppose the grouping - I have removed it - he is not a noteworthy criminal - he can be included is a group of politicians that have committed a crime - but classification as a criminal for such a minor conviction is excessive ? ] (]) 08:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:::"Griffin is in this group, which I don't oppose at all" -- confusing, then. I don't understand why his is "not a noteworthy criminal" -- in fact he is ''quite'' well known in the UK for having this particular criminal conviction. Perhaps you don't think whipping up racial hatred is a big deal? I don't see why this is a "minor conviction". ] (]) 08:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Suit yourself, add it back if you support it in agreement with ], but a nine month prison sentence suspended for two years for a minor conviction that is that persons only conviction and is 17 years historic allows him to be grouped as a notable criminal. I advise you that there is arbitration related to living people articles - ] (]) 09:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::I likely will add it back. You haven't offered any ''reasons'' why it should be considered a "minor conviction". I'm inclined to think that Griffin's offence is not so lightly dismissed. But the more important issue is that it's widely known here, because it has been widely covered in sources that we would have no trouble describing as reliable. ] (]) 09:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::] go on then - I will report you to ] ] (]) 09:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::The «Criminals from Suffolk» category contains ] but not people like ], this is crazy, it is used to make Griffin look bad, not to categorize articles properly. ] (]) 11:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::So Steve Wright can be added. (As for Griffin, he doesn't need much help in this respect, seems to me.) ] (]) 13:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


This text under Personal Life in the ] biography is poorly fact checked. Note refers to gossip regarding Shorts love life. Should be removed entirely.
Note: "criminals" is defined as a "sensitive category" per ] and ]. In the case at hand, the use of the category is,IMO, used more to ''discredit a person as being of poor character'' than anything else, and is thus improper. ] (]) 14:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:Actually, he's a criminal, as per his criminal conviction per the OP above. ] (]) 15:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
::I am not surprised at your stance. I suggest we get additional input here then-- a I fear your desire to label people as ''criminals'' as a nice scarlet letter may not be in absolute accord with the intent of ] at all. The question is (I recognize Griffin is a thoroughly despicable character who should be pilloried in every possible BLP, of course) whether where a conviction results in a ''suspended sentence'', whether we ought then label the person in every possible criminal category known to man, to make abundantly sure folks know precisely how horrid he is. Or whether the purpose of the categories is to list people who have been convicted of serous offenses and then incarcerated for substantial periods of time. The purpose of categories is ''can browse and quickly find sets of pages on '''topics that are defined by those characteristics.''' '' Are you asserting Griffin is or should be primarily defined by his status as a "criminal" per that stricture? Cheers. ] (]) 16:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Note: The crime was specifically related to the category of ''Holocaust deniers'', already in the BLP, and I would note that the others in that category are ''not'' placed in the "criminal" categories as well. ''Category:Criminals_by_crime'', vs. ''People_convicted_of_Holocaust_denial_offenses'' which has no overlap (except that was not what he was convicted of, in fact). Is there a reason for making an example of Griffin? ] (]) 16:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


Source: https://decider.com/2024/10/24/meryl-streep-martin-short-only-murders-in-the-building-romance/ <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::Well, he is what he is; a person convicted of a crime can't really hide from what he or she did. If you check, say, ], he is a member of "Category:20th-century criminals". ] (]) 17:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:It has been removed. Decider is not an appropriate source to put weight on. ] (]) 08:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Did you note the term "felony" by the way for Rosty by any chance? Was Rosty given a ''9 month suspended sentence''? Do you really think the two cases are so similar as you appear to claim? ] (]) 17:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
::This user doesn’t exist anymore, and the Meryl Streep article says the same thing, plus if you actually look into it there’s a lot more supporting it than just that one article so there’s no reason it can’t be included. That article actually includes quotes from the showrunner himself in fact. ] (]) 20:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::What I note is that both were found guilty of committing a criminal act; what the sentences were is immaterial. ] (]) 18:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Have any reliable sources actually reported that it is a confirmed relationship? The most recent reliable sources seem to be framing it as a rumour (), which fails ] in addition to BLP sourcing concerns. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 20:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Make sure you note that when you edit on all the ''anti-war demonstrators'' who got suspended sentences, the ''equal rights demonstrators'', and '']'' (Misplaced Pages dictates he lost his comma), all the ''union demonstrators'' etc. -- they are ''all criminals'', each and every one who was convicted of anything, and we should make sure they ''keep'' the scarlet letter visible. Or is this person special in some way? Cheers. ] (]) 19:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
::::Even the Decider source says "Short and Streep have not publicly commented on their relationship status". Tabloids are expected to pursue rumors and innuendo; Misplaced Pages is not. ]&nbsp;] 20:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::IIRC, Dr. King's "crimes" were either misdemeanors (trespassing, etc...) or were eventually dismissed. Less hyperbole would be welcome here. ] (]) 20:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
::::: We now have new accounts trying to edit-war the material into the article. I have reverted again, but will protect if this carries on. ] 20:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Actually MLK served time in a number of jails -- and the claim made here is that what we call "misdemeanors" are "crimes" - thus a person with a suspended sentence is a "criminal". Would you place a person who has a 9 month suspended sentence in the "criminals" category or not? shows him serving a jail sentence without any dismissal. IMHO, unless a person gets a sentence of "a year and a day" or more - they ought not be ''labelled'' as "criminals." Cheers. ] (]) 22:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::Hmm. We're talking in this section about ]. And yet someone seems to think that MLK Jr. is relevant. That's a ''really'' interesting equivalence being drawn. Just ''really'' interesting that someone would think to come up with some notion of relevance along those lines. ] (]) 23:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::If a person gets a suspended sentence - and someone asserts they are ''as much a criminal as a felon'' and '''more a criminal than serial killers''' - there is a chance that the reasons for labeling the person a criminal has naught to do with seriousness of the crime. Cheers. ] (]) 03:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
*I find it hard to understand why the ] would twice replace these labels/categories ] ] edit warring disputed detail about a living person whilst under discussion and without any clear consensus here? There is no clear support for their inclusion in the discussion above? I removed them again. ] (]) 04:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


== Călin Georgescu ==
:The category should only be used for people who are notable because of crimes they committed, like Jack the Ripper, the Krays or the Richardsons. People using this navigation tool are not looking for famous people convicted of minor offenses. ] (]) 04:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
::Another person who seems to think that inflaming racial hatred is a minor offence... ] (]) 14:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
:::The charge was ''distributing printed material''. Did you not notice that? The question is - should we state that being a "criminal" is a ''defining characteristic'' of Mr. Griffin? You appear to find it a "defining characteristic" and others do not agree. Cheers. ] (]) 14:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


What do you say about {{diff2|1264162062}}? ] (]) 21:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Griffin was convicted in 1998 under Part III, Section 19, of the ], and given a suspended sentence. The conviction has been considered ] since one year following completion of the sentence, and the offense was not repeated. It is no even an offense in the U.S. The Krays were given life sentences for murder. Indeed the legislators and courts saw Griffin's offense as relatively minor, in the sense that any offense is minor. It could be that the law should have treated this offense more seriously, but the fact is they do not, and it is not our role to second guess them. ] (]) 19:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
:For those interested in ], here's a link to the from two weeks ago, as well as a courtesy link to the article's talk page discussion: ]. – ] (]) 21:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::: Griffin is in ], subcat of ], and in ], and thus the usual rules of logic place him in ]. ] (]) 11:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
::Your argument was that I used low-quality sources. Your argument no longer holds true.
::So, basically, the burden of proof is according to you infinitely high. This man preaches New Age in public, but since he denies he is preaching New Age, it cannot be stated in his article. ] (]) 21:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::One of my objections to your content was the quality of the sources. You adding in another opinion article does not address that concern. Another objection was that you are making claims about a living person's personal religious beliefs that they dispute. I don't think that is appropriate, and if it is, then it would need very high quality sources supporting any claims about that, IMO. A third objection was that this content has been disputed and no one else has supported including it except for you, which is far from demonstrating there is a consensus for inclusion. – ] (]) 22:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm not a mind reader, so I do not profess to know his private thoughts. But journalists, academics, and theologians have analyzed his public discourse. There is a difference between private thoughts and public discourse. We cannot investigate the former, but we can know the latter. ] (]) 06:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::A bishop of the ] has lambasted the danger of the New Age in the context of the Romanian presidential elections. He did not explicitly name CG, but all informed readers know there was no other candidate for whom New Age was an issue. See .
::::This is getting serious, especially seen that the lower ROC clergy made political campaign for CG. The leadership of the Church played politically neutral. ] (]) 02:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::::] has a lot of sympathy for CG, but they also notice he is preaching New Age. ] (]) 02:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)


== RSN discussion about use of a self-published source (The InSneider) in film articles ==
== Gamergate controversy (2) ==


Posting a relevant discussion which might touch on ]: ] -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
{{la|Gamergate controversy}}

Another link was redacted from the Gamergate talk page with the stated reason that other articles on the site violate BLP, and while this article does not appear to, the redacting editor ''" didn't really want to have to trawl through the extensive comments"'' to confirm.

Previously I asked whether a BLP-violating article could be cited for its compliant, non-BLP material. That discussion has yet to reach a conclusion, partly it seems because my question is general and the answer depends on specifics. Here we have specifics - and they address an even broader question: can a BLP-'''complaint''' article be '''linked to''', when the site hosting it contains BLP-violating material.

The answer is important whether or not the redacted article is usable since that question can't be asked without linking the article. ] ] 18:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
:I've got some concerns with the comments below the article (namely those twitter screencaps), but the article itself seems okay to me. I guess the question becomes: {{tq|do we bar all links from a given site if that site has a reputation for BLP violations?}} Not sure I have an answer to that, but that seems to be the thinking behind this link's removal. ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 19:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

:: EvergreenFir said it better than I did. That's exactly my question. ] ] 19:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

::I thank both {{u|EncyclopediaBob}} and {{u|EvergreenFir}} for raising this question; I have now provided a policy based answer to EncyclopediaBob's question at ].
::In short, ]:
::* relates to {{tq|adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page}}, and requires {{tq|any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source}}. If we are not actually adding contentious material to Misplaced Pages there is no violation. As a logical consequence, sources do not inherently (in & of themselves) violate ].
::* does not contain anything which would prevent the use of a source (Per ], a triplet consisting of work, author, publisher) based on other works by the same author or publisher, or other sources hosted on the same website.
::* does not support the redaction of links to sources from Talk pages, regardless of the content of the source. (As was done here). Such links are explicitly permitted per ]; as supported by an ArbCom consensus here, and the consensus at ].
::I thank EvergreenFir for their clear phrasing of the question. To directly answer, with a slight rephrasing :- '''No''', we do not ''bar all links from a given site if that site has a reputation for <s>BLP violations</s><u>contentious material about living persons</u>''.
::As always, I appreciate & welcome any policy based, alternative opinions of other Wikipedians.
::<small>Note: I initiated and contributed to the discussion at ].</small> - ] <sup>]</sup> 12:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
:::I think I agree with {{U|Ryk72}} on this. Unless the website is patently offensive and its mere mention in relation to another person potentially libelous (e.g., Stormfront), non-problematic pages from a problematic website are fine to link to in a talk page. But I would love to hear more opinions on this. Might start an RfC so we can hear more on it. Let me ping {{U|HJ Mitchell}}, {{U|Callanecc}}, and {{U|Future Perfect at Sunrise}} as they have enforced GG sanctions in the past and this topic is related to that. <small>Specifically whether or not linking to a page on a site like gamergate me is a BLP violation, regardless of the content of the actual linked page. This is in relation to recent links by now-topic-banned Ghost Lorde.</small> ] ] <small>Please &#123;&#123;]&#125;&#125;</small> 17:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
::::Whether it's a BLP violation in and of itself is not a question a single admin can answer. But isn't that site user-generated? If that's correct, then I can't think of any good reason to be linking to it, especially if the site contains libellous material. As with most things, it's a matter of judgement, and whether it's sanctionable would be decided on a case-by-case basis at AE. ] &#124; ] 18:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::The possibility of using that particular site as an RS seems remote, but I believe it has potential as an ] for information about the movement. Is seems impossible however to discuss that broadly without risking redaction or even sanction. I'm curious as well if there's precedent (pre-Gamergate) for applying BLP to links of any kind (even libelous) on talk pages. ] ] 19:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::There is zero potential for the site being used as an ] for its own article, we would require high-quality ] compliant sources for such an article, and that site would never pass muster. I'd suggest dropping this paper tiger before it gives you a ]. ] <small>]</small> 23:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

:Per ], articles must be based on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". At the same time, we should rarely use questionable sources, which "rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion". The question is whether a source with a reputation for publishing egregious gossip and opinion about living persons—the type of material that would be redacted as a BLP violation if used on Misplaced Pages, even on a Talk page—can simultaneously have the opposite reputation about its other articles. I would argue that, in most cases, they cannot. Many well-known, otherwise reliable sources have opinion or gossip sections, but these are still under some sort of editorial control and are nonetheless clearly defined as opinion/gossip. That demarcation between news and editorial sections, as well as solid factual reporting, is what earns newspapers their reputation. (And ]s.) With a source that fundamentally lacks such a reputation in the first place and has no clear distinction between fact and gossip—as evidenced by their other articles—we should consider everything published by that source as questionable. ] (]) 17:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we do need to bar all links from an attack site that contains BLP violations, even if the singular landing page itself doesn't contain BLP violations. Further, I question that a site which has content that violates BLP is being used or proposed to being used by editors as if it were a Reliable Source, when it clearly is not. ] <small>]</small> 20:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

:Hi {{u|Dreadstar}}, many thanks for your thoughts on this matter; and also for your efforts as an Admin, they are greatly appreciated.
:W.r.t this question, I think it's fair to say that our opinions considerably differ, but I accept that we are both proposing what we in good faith believe is best for the Misplaced Pages Project, and for the improvement of the encyclopedia.
:To this end, I humbly suggest that the standard that you are proposing is not in the best interests of the Misplaced Pages Project, and will not lead to improvement of the encyclopedia. It will lead to suppression of good faith discussion of sources; suppression of good faith source-based discussion of article content; frustration of the consensus building process; and general all round un-] behaviour. I would suggest that this is already occurring.
:It may seem to be purely a question of semantics, but I again assert that as ] relates to {{tq|adding information about living persons}} to Misplaced Pages that sources do not inherently (in & of themselves) violate ]. Regarding sources as ''containing BLP violations'' or ''violating BLP'' is a fundamental misapprehension of policy, which leads to its misapplication.
:Questions that I, and I believe many other independent editors, have include, but are not limited to:
:* How do we determine what is and what isn't a "reliable source" without discussion of that source? (Source as defined at ]: work, author, publisher triplet).
:* How do we determine what is and is not an "attack page" or "attack site" without discussion of that page or site?
:* How do we prevent POV-based determination of what is an "attack page" or "attack site"? (We have a hard enough time with POV-based determination of what is a reliable source).
:* By extending the test across an entire website are we placing an undue burden on editors to vet not only the contents of a proposed source, but also (all?) other sources by the same author or publisher?
:* Why must links be ''verboten''? How does this directly benefit Misplaced Pages? (I respectfully suggest that the burden is on those desiring a stricter interpretation of ] to show how this benefits).
:* Why is it not sufficient for other editors to simply respond to a proposed source with "Source would not seem to be reliable ] & ]" or "Source contains contentious material about living persons ]; suggest we use alternative source X" or even "Proposed content seems ]; suggest that the article is better off without it". (Any of these is more collegial than redaction; more likely to promote discussion & consensus building).
:In considering the implications across the whole of Misplaced Pages, not solely focused on a narrow range of contentious topics, I firmly believe that we are better as a project, and will build a better encyclopedia, if we allow discussion to occur, and consensus to form. I firmly believe that ] (especially ]), ], ], and ] (as currently written) sufficiently protect Misplaced Pages from the implications of "contentious material about living persons" which is not reliably sourced. I believe that extending these as proposed is both unnecessary and detrimental to the project. I would only hope that sufficient editors are of a similar mind.
:I again thank you for your efforts and dedication to the Misplaced Pages Project, and look forward to your thoughts, and to those of other Wikipedians. - ] <sup>]</sup> 01:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
::Let me reiterate to you, if you link to an attack site with BLP violations, I will block you or anyone else who does so. ] <small>]</small> 01:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
::: ] failed. How/why are you acting contrary to ] which is policy? Reopening closed discussions might qualify as tendentious but just pointing people offsite for background material or ideas is protected by policy. If Site X makes a statement about Jane Doe that could not be made on WP for BLP reasons, it's not blockable to point to it for discussion. The reason is simple: Jane Doe can point to the same site and expose it and it can often be the springboard for reliable sources to backup or refute the link content. The key for assessing it from WP's side is whether an editor is doing it out of malice or to improve or broaden the encyclopedia. It's quite a departure from AGF to presume a single link presented for discussion was malicious. Reverting or blocking without discussion is the larger abuse than just a link of unrepeated verbiage. There is currently no news site that doesn't contain information that WP would consider a BLP violation. This sounds more like ] than any serious BLP concern. It's specious to throw out terms like libel for discussing a link. Misplaced Pages editors cannot commit libel by providing links so throwing that legal term out there has a chilling and threatening tone that is not conducive to editing per ]. --] (]) 06:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
:::: I'll be a little more blunt. Boastful threats to block editors to prove a point contribute to the noise, not discussion, and if carried out would be an abuse of tools. Plenty of sites contain BLP violations. Discussing them outside of article space so as to improve the encyclopedia is what talk pages are all about. The Gamergate article space on Misplaced Pages, much less the world at large, won't be improved by decreasing the signal to noise ratio. - ] (]) 09:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that any editor who posts a link to a web site that contains a BLP violation should be banned? Does that include CBS News? Because I can post such a link. And you can ban me. It would have nothing to do with Gamergate, but the freedom to discuss the reliability of a source should not be compromised. Honestly, I've had enough of this zero-tolerance atmosphere. If we as editors are not allowed to discuss the reliability of websites on Misplaced Pages, then WP:V is dead. And if WP:V is dead, then where is Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 22:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

== Dean Jones biography... ==

Dean Jones is my father. I'm the youngest of Dean and Mae's two daughters. My step-brother Michael Pastick, is 3 years older than my older sister Carol and is Lory's son from a previous marriage. Dean and wife Lory never had a child together. I love my step-brother, but he is not my blood brother. Just trying to set the record straight. Please change this on the bio. Thank you, Deanna Jones Demaree
I'm not sure what proof I have, ie references. Look it up. It's in Dean's book... " Under Running Laughter" <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Page number? Exact quote? ] ] 07:43, ], ] (UTC)
:I have removed the wrong information which was unsourced anyway. It is up to Misplaced Pages editors to have reliable sources for what they include. The onus is not on people mentioned in articles to prove anything unless there are reliable sources saying otherwise. ] (]) 11:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{la|Ephraim Padwa}}
Hi, as a wikinewbie not sure whether this should be brought up here but there seems to be a bit of a wikiedit war going on between a couple of wikieditors with this article ]. a look at the revision history shows edits being entered then reverted with no reason given. can someone look into this? thanks:)] (]) 01:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
:Looks like that happened last year. {{u|Chesdovi}} reverted on the basis that "policy does not allow" the inclusion of the material among other things, but I'm not sure what part of BLP they are referring to (if at all). Judging from the coverage from reliable sources, I don't see how we can realistically exclude it. There are articles from , , , and so on. If the concern is weight then the bio should be expanded, but removing the information is not appropriate. <span style="color:red; font-size: smaller; font-weight: bold;">§]</span><sup>]</sup> 02:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
::I've restored it. ] (]) 06:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
It is inappropriate to re-add this infomation without expansion. ] (]) 16:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

:::] anyone?--] (]) 21:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
::::Not really -- there's more to write about. ] (]) 22:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

== Jackie Joyner-Kersee (section: 1992 Summer Olympics) ==

The entry under this section reads that "Jack Joyner-Kersee... died after an exploding salmon was thrown at her." This is fictitious. She actually won a bronze medal in the long lump. http://www.biography.com/people/jackie-joyner-kersee-9358710#olympic-star <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:Vandalism reverted.--] (]) 17:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==

I'm not sure how exactly to deal with this, so. I'm wondering if that controversy section should be there at all when it describes (in length) certain rumors about people which we've not written about in the articles of those persons themselves (and shouldn't because it would appear to be WP:BLP violation). I'd blank it completely, is that wrong? Or should those two controversies be written about in a different way? —&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>(])</sup> 15:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

:Reverted to an earlier version before that section was added.--] (]) 16:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hello. Can someone please protect ] to prevent further violations of ], ], and ] (see the edit history)? ] (]) 19:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

== Sachiin J Joshi ==

The article has many flaws. It does not meet notability guideline for biographies. Firstly, it uses self-published sources. The article uses person's own website as a reference source. The "Other achievements" section praises the person using his own website as a reference source. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Sherman Brothers ==

Rudyard Kipling wrote The Jungle Books at his home near Brattleboro, Vermont, in the 1890s, not at Browns Hotel in the early 1900s, although Browns was a favorite place for him to stay.
I wrote the book Rudyard Kipling in Vermont, published in the 1990s.

Best wishes,

Stuart A.P. Murray
Berlin, New York <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Steven Emerson - Part 3 ==

{{la|Steven Emerson}}

{{talkquote|Emerson has been criticized for some of his views, characterizing Emmerson as a discredited terrorism expert and an Islamophobe in ''The Cambridge Companion to American Islam'',<ref name=CambridgeCompanion>{{cite book|author1=Hammer, Julie|author2=Safi, Amid|title=The Cambridge Companion to American Islam|date=2013|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=9781107002418|page=8|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OBPKKFUyZaUC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8#v=onepage&q&f=false|accessdate=22 January 2015|quote=Islamophobe Steven Emerson (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma city bombings committed by Timothy McVeigh)}}</ref> while ], the Kenan Distinguished Professor of ] at the Department of Religious Studies at the ], described him as a prominent producer of Islamophobic discourse.<ref name=Palgrave.Macmillan>{{cite book|last1=Ernst|first1=Carl W.|title=Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance|date=2013|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|isbn=9781137290083|page=86|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=K-0VFNIfZyIC&pg=PT86#v=onepage&q&f=false|quote=Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, New Ginrich, Steven Emerson, Glenn Beck, Frank Gaffney&nbsp;— many of the most prominent producers of Islamophobic discourse }}</ref>}}
{{reflist talk}}

{{u|ChrisGualtieri}} is of the opinion that the material above is a violation of BLP, and claims that ] applies here based on his argument that {{tq|The claim is highly contentious, purely opinion, lacking veracity, decidedly non-neutral}}. I argue that this is not the case, and the opinions are significant enough to warrant inclusion, and that opinions need not to be neutral to be significant for inclusion: NPOV requires us to include such opinions.

This has been discussed extensively already at BLP/N:
* ]
* ]

While I appreciate the concern about "getting it right" in BLPs, I object the use of the BLP policy as a bludgeon used to exclude criticism from BLPs, when the criticism is supported by good quality sources, as this will violate NPOV - ] ] 16:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
:: There is absolutely no reason to repeatedly insert accusations of bigotry sourced to persons connected to an organization in protracted disputes with Steven Emerson. This is a highly contentious opinion sourced to less than a sentence which basically states "Islamophobe Steven Emerson" from a Google string search. Swap "Islamophobic" with "Anti-semite" or "racist" and you have the same BLP issue. Verifiability and veracity - not passing petty insults. ] (]) 16:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
:::It's entirely verifiable that Emerson has been criticised for some of his views, and the criticism has extended to the view that he has produced Islamophobic discourse. You appear not to like it, but it meets our policies quite readily. ] (]) 16:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
:::: His views can be criticized but you do not go about calling someone a bigot on their biography without any merit and sourced to the personal enemies of the subject. This is why "misinformation expert" is fine, but not a bigot. You seem to be unable to reconcile the differences. Swap "Islamophobic" with "Anti-semite" - is it still appropriate? No. We do not go labeling or accusing people of being bigots when there is no evidence they are bigots. ] (]) 16:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
::::: Let's clarify something once and for all: Misplaced Pages (which I assume is what you mean when you use "we" above) is not calling anyone a bigot. What we are doing is reporting on criticism of Emerson as described in reliable sources. That is a big difference and a crucial distinction in this discussion. - ] ] 16:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::You (CG) want "evidence", as if it had to be a fact. But haven't you also argued that being a "bigot" can only be a matter of someone's opinion? You can't have it both ways. What matters is whether it's a characterisation that is supported by reliable sources. There's no question that the sources meet ]. (And no, it wouldn't be different if it was a characterisation of someone as an anti-Semite.) ] (]) 16:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
:The text shown above is a fine example of a BLP-compliant, ]-compliant summary of what prominent views are held about Emerson. Many more sources agree with the evaluation, so the above text is arguably too weak, suggesting that only these two sources think Emerson is an Islamophobe. ] (]) 17:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
:: There are additional sources that can be used to expand the sentence to address your concern,<ref name=WaPo.FoxNews>{{cite web|title=9 questions about Birmingham that Fox News was too embarrassed to ask|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/12/9-questions-about-birmingham-that-fox-news-was-too-embarrassed-to-ask/|publisher=Washington Post|accessdate=22 January 2015|quote=Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia in the past.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Hafez|first1=Kai|title=Islam in Liberal Europe: Freedom, Equality, and Intolerance|date=2014|publisher=]|isbn=9781442229525|page=288|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wSXbAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA288|accessdate=23 January 2015|quote=This is not different among Islamophobic opinion leaders in the United States such as Steven Emerson or Daniel Pipes, whose notions of Islamic jihadism as the new communism, and so on, have gained wide currency.}}</ref><ref name="law as movement">{{cite journal|last=Yazdiha|first=Haj|date=2014|title=Law as movement strategy: How the Islamophobia movement institutionalizes fear through legislation|journal=]|volume=13|issue=2|publisher=]|format=PDF|doi= 10.1080/14742837.2013.807730|accessdate= 23 January 2015|quote="funding flows to the Islamophobia movement's 'misinformation experts' including...Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism|url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14742837.2013.807730}}</ref> and even Emerson himself refers to the Islamophobe criticism leveled against him, rebutting that " any criticism of Islam means you are an Islamophobe."
{{reflist talk}}
::- ] ] 17:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Seeing as there are 3 conversation about this subject now, if the content being discussed at the prior 2 is the same as here, I suggest ] closing procedures be used after this one concludes. Let all 3 be collectively reviewed and a consensus be determined based on them, Lest we open a 4th one here in a few more weeks.] (]) 20:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' I actually agree with {{u|Serialjoepsycho}}. Prior comments supported ] policy, and considered the addition in the lede to be noncompliant with NPOV: and . Also, WP is not a tabloid that needs to be updated each time a biased source says something derogatory about the subject. Emerson's gaffe was actually included in a section of its own in the body of the article. How many BLP-N discussions must we undergo considering this is the 3rd, and beginning to look like ]. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 21:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
***It doesn't look like forum shopping at all Atsme. What's clear from viewing some of the discussion elsewhere, some of you have interpreted a different consensus. So let who ever add what ever new, no one continue to repeat the same old, and then go seek an ADMIN Closure. They will determine the consensus based on what has been said.] (]) 21:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
****Sounds like a plan to me, {{u|Serialjoepsycho}}. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 02:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
**** Note that this discussion is unrelated to the article's lede at this time. The dispute is about the validity of this material for it to be included in the article. - ] ] 04:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
*****Related? Unrelated? When your done go seek an official close is the relevant part of the above. If the other discussions about Steven Emerson are related point it out to the closer so they can take those views into account. If they aren't but since there seems to be some issue related to them seek to have them officially closed as well.] (]) 06:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This is an expanded version, addressing concerns expressed by {{u|Binksternet}}, as well as including Emerson's attempt at rebuttal in a Fox News oped, for balance. - ] ] 04:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

{{talkquote|Emerson has been criticized for some of his views, characterizing him as a discredited terrorism expert and an Islamophobe in ''The Cambridge Companion to American Islam'',<ref name=CambridgeCompanion>{{cite book|author1=Hammer, Julie|author2=Safi, Amid|title=The Cambridge Companion to American Islam|date=2013|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=9781107002418|page=8|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OBPKKFUyZaUC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8#v=onepage&q&f=false|accessdate=22 January 2015|quote=Islamophobe Steven Emerson (the discredited "terrorism expert" who falsely identified Muslims as being behind the Oklahoma city bombings committed by Timothy McVeigh)}}</ref> while ], the Kenan Distinguished Professor of ] at the Department of Religious Studies at the ], described him as a prominent producer of Islamophobic discourse.<ref name=Palgrave.Macmillan>{{cite book|last1=Ernst|first1=Carl W.|title=Islamophobia in America: The Anatomy of Intolerance|date=2013|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|isbn=9781137290083|page=86|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=K-0VFNIfZyIC&pg=PT86#v=onepage&q&f=false|quote=Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, New Ginrich, Steven Emerson, Glenn Beck, Frank Gaffney&nbsp;— many of the most prominent producers of Islamophobic discourse }}</ref> Emerson responded to these and similar characterizations<ref name=WaPo.FoxNews>{{cite web|title=9 questions about Birmingham that Fox News was too embarrassed to ask|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/12/9-questions-about-birmingham-that-fox-news-was-too-embarrassed-to-ask/|publisher=Washington Post|accessdate=22 January 2015|quote=Emerson has been accused of Islamophobia in the past.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Hafez|first1=Kai|title=Islam in Liberal Europe: Freedom, Equality, and Intolerance|date=2014|publisher=]|isbn=9781442229525|page=288|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wSXbAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA288|accessdate=23 January 2015|quote=This is not different among Islamophobic opinion leaders in the United States such as Steven Emerson or Daniel Pipes, whose notions of Islamic jihadism as the new communism, and so on, have gained wide currency.}}</ref><ref name="law as movement">{{cite journal|last=Yazdiha|first=Haj|date=2014|title=Law as movement strategy: How the Islamophobia movement institutionalizes fear through legislation|journal=]|volume=13|issue=2|publisher=]|format=PDF|doi= 10.1080/14742837.2013.807730|accessdate= 23 January 2015|quote="funding flows to the Islamophobia movement's 'misinformation experts' including...Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism|url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14742837.2013.807730}}</ref> in an op-ed for ''Fox News'', stating that criticism of Islam labeled as Islamphophia, and the labeling of "Islamic terrorism" as a racist generalization of Muslims, is "one of the biggest and most dangerous national security frauds of the past 30 years."<ref>{{cite web|last1=Emerson|first1=Steven|title=Will we ever learn? Obama White House can't admit Paris attacks 'Islamic terrorism'|url=http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/01/07/will-ever-learn-obama-white-house-cant-admit-paris-attacks-islamic-terrorism/|publisher=Fox News|accessdate=5 March 2015}}</ref>
}}
{{reflist talk}}


== ] ==
::Yes... I like the phrasing "responded to these and similar characterizations" as it gives the reader the correct sense that Emerson has a greater level of criticism than just one uninvolved scholarly book and one involved but respected scholar. ] (]) 05:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
:::I'm not really seeing much of an issue with this honestly, but I would like to view some some further comments, and well really get the meat and potatoes of the Issue that Chris has with this. Has this particularly already been discussed?] (]) 07:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
:::: It has been discussed extensively (follow the other discussions here at BLP/N, liked above). The issue ChrisGualtiery has with it, is summarized in his comment to my talk page {{tq|The claim is highly contentious, purely opinion, lacking veracity, decidedly non-neutral and sourced to nothing more than half a sentence quip. There is no place for unsupported accusations of bigotry}}. - ] ] 14:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::Honestly that diff provides no context. The only bit of discussion I've actually looked at specifically was related o the lead and you have expressly stated that this material here relates in no way to the lead. There are probably a few things change, but in principal I don't not see an issue with mentioning these views if by prominent individuals. I do find myself questioning who in context to, "Emerson has been criticized for some of his views, characterizing him as a discredited terrorism expert and an Islamophobe in The Cambridge Companion to American Islam" because it doesn't seem Enrst is the person behind this point of view. It actually seems that we are attributing this opinion to Cambridge University thru their press. Probably not the best Idea. I wonder if the views can be attributed to the editors of it or specifically to someone the editors interviewed while writing the book. But really I'd like to hear I'd like to hear more from others to really get a view of this dispute to get a little more context.] (]) 19:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


There’s been a recent update of Moira Deeming’s DOB as consequence of an affidavit that she filled as consequence of a lawsuit initiated by her. What is the more pertinent policy? ] which says we shouldn’t use court transcripts or other court documents in BLPs, or ] which says that because it’s an uncontentious fact which the subject has written about themselves that we can use it?
The issue is that bigotry and/or hate speech doesn't belong in the lead. It is not the prevailing view, rather it is a biased minority view and should not be given ]. I'm not convinced that it improves the article and is actually reminiscent of tabloid journalism. The public's perception of how proponents of Islam feel about Emerson is obvious considering the COI and/or bias toward him and his line of work. Also, several important comments are missing from this discussion as a result of separating it into 3 parts. Where are the opposing views, including what {{u|ChrisGualtieri}} and others stated in Parts 1 & 2? <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 19:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Please see discussion at ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 10:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:I'd absolutely agree that it would be inadvisable to put that in the lead like that at this time, but above Cwobeel has specifically stated that this conversation doesn't relate to the lead at this moment. As for the other parts, that is why I suggested that an official close be sought and related discussion all be closed as one. If there are any points contextually that you feel would help here please provide diffs and link them. Please though attempt to be brief.] (]) 20:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
::If the discussion is not about inclusion in the lead, then most certainly include it in the body of the article. I have no problem with that at all. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 20:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


== Abubakar Atiku Bagudu ==
:: I don't think it is appropriate to wait for an admin to close this discussion "officially". Admins are not here to be arbitrators for content disputes (I don't see any mention of an admin role in ] besides conduct disputes, neither I see that in ]). We should be able to handle the close by ourselves with the kind assistance of uninvolved editors. - ] ] 21:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
::: I don't think it would be appropriate to do anything but follow the procedure at ]. Because you have already been unable to close yourself. I recommend a admin closure just to avoid any unneeded drama in relation to a non-admin closure. It can be a non-admin closure by an uninvolved editor that is prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale if asked. But regardless it does need to be formally closed and that is the whole point. And I know the perfect place to seek an uninvolved party to assist in the closure, ].] (]) 12:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
:::: I disagree. ANRFC is for cases in which there is no clear consensus. And as far as I can see from this discussion, there is consensus for inclusion, as consensus does not imply unanimity. So, in this case we don't need admin help. - ] ] 18:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


*{{la|Abubakar Atiku Bagudu}}
===Oklahoma City bombing===
The Emerson biography should say that Emerson screwed up in his guess of who bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City. Why is that not in the biography? Many authors bring it up when they mention Emerson. Even Emerson acknowledges his mistake as a personal "albatross". Apparently, of the biography, which is astonishing. It's a prominent part of his career which everybody including Emerson agrees upon. ] (]) 22:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
:: It wasn't just "his guess" - that should be clear because local police and the FBI also specifically considered Islamic terrorism. Reports surfaced almost immediately following and Emerson was one who agreed it had the hallmark. He made the statement, but he isn't the origin of the claim. The gaff itself has been used against Emerson and it is appropriate to include it - as well as the context surrounding it. Though in the big scheme of things - its sorta lame as "the biggest error" they refer to for him, but it is what it is. Political drama is like toilet writings for me - but I disagree with Atsme only because it is too prevalent to omit. ] (]) 18:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
:::This should have never been removed. This should be put back in as neutrally as possible.] (]) 22:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
::::Yes it should have, and the reason follows. The misleading comment Binksternet made about me is not unlike the misleading comment he wants included in the Emerson BLP...both are misleading and factually incorrect. Per my edit summary: {{xt|removed '''poorly written paragraph stating that Emerson was "labeled an Islamophobe" based on incorrectly stated, unverifiable opinion.''' Emerson never mentioned Muslims. BLP violation)}} Binks, I'm curious - you removed an entire section I included in ] (which is inextricably linked to Emerson and mirrors much of the same info) with the following summary: {{xt|(→‎Boston Marathon Bombing: delete section... this issue is of very little importance in the case. The videos posted by the two bombers were little seen. The IPT did nothing substantial here.)}} . And now you think a 20 year old interview on CBS wherein he only suggested that the bombing had a Middle Eastern trait is important? I think the Boston bombing is far more important because (1) it's recent, and (2) Emerson was doing his job which is what we're supposed to write about. Now what could be the difference between the two that makes you think a 20 year old brief interview is so almighty important...let's see...could it be that with the Ok City bombing Emerson suggested a ME trait when it was actually homegrown terrorism, and with the Boston bombing it was Islamic terrorism and Emerson was correct? Interesting angle on NPOV. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 23:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


A heads up on something worth keeping an eye on. A new user is removing the (sourced) section on this article entitled "Corruption". It could probably do with someone more competent than me double checking the quality of the sources. The edit summary of their second blanking of the section reads: ''"This information is misleading and it has no basis to be uploaded. The matter is currently in court and should be removed from the subjects profile until adjudicated upon by a court of competent jurisdiction."'' which is not a legal threat, per se, but does have a chilling effect. ] (]) 13:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::::: I understand your point, but that is not what we do in WP. We don't bring our own opinions, rather, we report what reliable sources say. Adding your own commentary to somehow dismiss or diminish the RSs provided, as you have done (see ]), is a violation of ]. - ] ] 23:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
::::::No, I did not bring my opinion in. I provided an inline citation for my source, and the source said precisely what I stated in the article (no copyvio) which is actually what we do on WP. The SYNTH and POV is what was in the passage I modified to be policy compliant. Do I need to include that whole ball of yarn here with inline text attribution for each phrase? I hope not. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 01:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::: Cwobeel doesn't understand the point you make Atsme. This is clear because his use of "reliable source" here translates to - the biased non-neutral assessment by a political think-tank which Emerson has been in conflict with for decade and that it uses a quote fragment and a lack of context to attack Emerson personally. I mean sure... the ] to the ] were going on about the Middle East trait, live coverage well-before Emerson was already hard pounding the WTC and Islamic terrorism angle. CNN identified four innocent Arab Americans in connection with the bombing.... Emerson also criticized CNN for this act... yet it is "Emerson the Islamophobe"? American Journalism Review is better source than Emerson's personal enemies. ] (]) 01:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


== Potential Bias and Edit Warring on “David and Stephen Flynn” Biography ==
===Cwobeel blocked===
So Cwobeel was just blocked for violating ], which is a method I had never seen. ChrisGualtieri filed a case against Cwobeel at ], then HJ Mitchell read the case and blocked Cwobeel. The immediate complaint was that Cwobeel during this discussion here at BLPN, the text in question described as a BLP violation by ChrisGualierie and Atsme. My problem with the Arb case and the block stems from the persistent mischaracterization of the text as being a violation of BLP. The sources are scholarly ones, the highest quality sources we have. Yes, they characterize Steven Emerson and ] as being the two most prominent voices of Islamophobia in the US. It doesn't particularly matter whether Emerson is happy with this assessment or not; the description accurately represents the opinion of these (and some other) scholars.


Hi everyone,
If we are to institute a rule disallowing any re-posting of BLPN disputed material (no matter how highly sourced the text or how misrepresented the complaint) then we will open ourselves up to those who would game the system: any I-don't-like-it text can be perpetually discussed at BLPN to keep it from being re-posted at a biography. That's a change I would not like to see. ] (]) 16:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
:: Half a sentence quips from parties involved in a dispute with Emerson is not "scholarly" by any means - it is name calling. The real issue is repeatedly edit warring to reinsert the material which is at BLPN when there is no consensus to include the material is the problem. And you have done this yourself. ] (]) 16:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


I am reaching out to request assistance with the article about David and Stephen Flynn on Misplaced Pages. There appears to be an ongoing issue with 2 sections: "Careers" and "Health Advice & Public Response"
== Mary-Jean O'Doherty ==


Several attempts have been made to improve the neutrality of the section by adding balanced context and reliable sources to reflect differing perspectives, but these edits are repeatedly reverted by an editor (or editors) without meaningful discussion or engagement. The old section "medical misinformation" is highly one-sided and does not adhere to Misplaced Pages’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.
Can I have some more eyes on this article and a second opinion. I am on my second revert and will not revert again.


For the "careers" section, the editor(s) keep deleting that they've stopped collaborating with Russell Brand and to make it seem they still support him. Although the original comments were made prior to recent allegations against Russell Brand.
{{User|RebeccaTheAwesomeXD}} with a long history of warnings for adding unsourced or poorly sourced dates of birth to BLPs, has been repeatedly adding an exact DoB to ] with no source, although she has claimed on my talk page, that she got it from . That page is from a website that is based in Russia, is not the official Eurovision website, and uses information "gathered from fans around the world". It is not a ] for a biography of a living person. I can find no other source for this date and it appears in none of her official biographies. There is also the issue of ] in including a full DoB, especially a potentially spurious one. ] (]) 16:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


Specific changes made:
:This is a no-brainer - if there is a dispute about a DoB or the reliability of its sourcing, we leave it out.--] (]) 17:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
1) The section title, “Medical Misinformation,” is sensational and prejudges the content. I have proposed a more neutral alternative (“Health Advice and Public Response”) to better reflect the material.
2) Revisions have added reliable sources, such as peer-reviewed studies and mainstream media articles, to provide context and balance, but these have been reverted without clear justification.
3) Efforts to include clarifications about actions taken by David and Stephen Flynn, such as their acknowledgment of errors and removal of contentious content, have also been removed or ignored.


I believe this issue warrants review by neutral, experienced editors to ensure the article aligns with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines on neutrality, verifiability, and respect for biographies of living persons.
::It may need to be noted that per a previous discussion at ], it was found that the ESCKaz website that {{U|Voceditenore}} linked to above, had been found to also be in violation of copyright from Misplaced Pages text (]). And as a consequence the project placed ESCKaz on their project's ] list, and thus ESCkaz should not even be used as a verifiable source whatsoever. It should also be noted that I had reported RebeccaTheAwesomeXD to ] back in October 2014 (]) about similar disruptive behaviour, as well as the numerous warnings on her talk page - some of which she use threatening tactics in response to warnings; such as "]" and childish remarks like "]. Some of Rebecca's contributions are perfect and reasonable. But others have caused more damage than good. I feel that Rebecca should either be faced with adoption tutorial from an experienced editor; or topic ban across BLP and Eurovision-related articles. <span style="font-family:Calibri;text-shadow:#808 2px 4px 6px;">''']&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>]'''</sup></span> 21:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


I would greatly appreciate guidance or intervention from the community to address this matter fairly. I am happy to provide details of the edits and sources I have proposed.
:: I have blocked {{user|RebeccaTheAwesomeXD}} for 1 week for continued violations of the ] policy. I've also blocked {{ip|112.208.61.89}} which appears to have been used by her to evade scrutiny. I will consider further action as needed. ]<small><span style="font-weight:bold;">&nbsp;·</span>&#32;]</small> 17:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


Thank you for your time and assistance. ] (]) 15:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Despite the fact this block has now been put in place, it would appear that Rebecca has a pattern of adding or altering dates of birth on BLP articles for quite some time, and all of them being unsourced.
:Related: ] ]&nbsp;] 16:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::* ]
::Thanks... I have responded there as I can see that person has gone in to change the wiki page again. Not sure what more we can do. ] (]) 17:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
::* ]
:I've started a convo on the article talk page. Please continue there. ] (]) 18:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Maybe a block isn't going to teach her anything about the seriousness of this kind of incident. Perhaps a topic ban on BLP articles is necessary? Her contributions on other articles are good, but when it comes to BLP's she just does what she wants and ignores all warnings from editors including admins. <span style="font-family:Calibri;text-shadow:#808 2px 4px 6px;">''']&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>]'''</sup></span> 23:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
:::: This is a difficult one. I've given it some thought, and my conclusion for now is that ] are apparent here and it is therefore not likely that Rebecca will likely follow any complex sanctions imposed. I've decided to keep it simple for now and to keep blocking her until she understands that her current behaviour is unacceptable. I'll be reviewing the situation again before the block expires though. ]<small><span style="font-weight:bold;">&nbsp;·</span>&#32;]</small> 17:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


== Discussion at ] regarding ] ==
== ]'s "effeminate" comments ==


An editor has started a discussion "{{tq|about the ] aspects}}" of a DYK nomination at ]. Feel free to offer input there, ] (]) 15:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
His comments are publicized, but are they worth being added to the article? --] (]) 11:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
:No. They are an off the cuff comment, over blown by the tabloids. Next week they will be forgotten. --] (]) 11:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
:They are not overblown off the cuff comments Fae, they actually have offended segments of the LGBT community and Tovey has a history of denigrating what he considers "flamboyant and camp". It's well known. --] (]) 14:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
:Tovey is a gay man prides himself on being "straight acting" and passing for a straight man. His comments clearly reflect this. It's also clear he is unconscious of why he makes such 'off the cuff' remarks in the first place, hence why they were highly publicized. They were harmful to those 'really effeminate' men within the LGBT community who consider him a role model and do not conform to the heteronormative standards of behaviour he speaks of and has spoken of in the past. For you to undermine the comments as 'overblown' is dismissive of their potential impact which is why I think you should consider keeping these comments in the article itself. --] (]) 14:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


== Edit War on Trump ==
:There are some unreliable and/or primary sources there, lack of NPOV and a lot of weight. "came under fire on social media" is precisely the kind of thing we want to avoid. However, if there was reaction from reliable sources or notable people and a consequence of some sort, and all that can be sourced to stuff other than twitter, then perhaps it merits a shorter paragraph. Right now it looks like it was worded by an angry LGBT advocate, which is not ideal for a BLP. <span style="color:red; font-size: smaller; font-weight: bold;">§]</span><sup>]</sup> 17:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
{{cot| IP User should keep discussion on ] talk page. ] (]) 19:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)}}
::By the way, I have taken time to read the original interview (where the comment hardly is noticeable) and a few of the later inflammatory pieces in other tabloids. I have also gone to Tovey's twitter stream and read his immediate reactions. Though a few people might be wound up by a passing comment made during a long interview, I am still of the opinion that this is over-inflated as it does not properly illustrate Tovey's opinions on being a gay figure (as shown by his responses). I find no systematic evidence that Tovey "has a history" of denigrating flamboyant gay people; this may be confusing his fictional roles and his aims as an actor to take more edgy material with his personal world-view. As a co-founder of Wikimedia LGBT, I am sensitive to the issues but I think we should retain a focus on ensuring LGBT related articles are as a good quality as possible. This means avoiding compiling dubious "controversy" sections which have no long term encyclopaedic merit.
So it has come to this hasn't it?
::If anyone is looking for newspaper sources and wishes to research Tovey's BLP further, I do have access to LexisNexis and can pass on material to help with improving the article if you have specific areas to focus on. Thanks --] (]) 12:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
This incident all started on ] when ] won the recent election. Following this, an edit war ensued. This occurs in the section after the ] in which ]. People keep editing the title, changing it to "Interpresidency", "First post-presidency", or most recently "Post-presidency". I see this is taking place on a Extended confirmed article. I request it be upgraded to an appropriate level. ] (]) 19:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


:Care to point to exactly what / where / when? And really, don't bring this sort of thing here unless <u>absolutely necessary</u> and if it can't be resolved on the relevant talk pages. <span style="color:#7E790E;">2601AC47</span> (]<big>·</big>]<big>·</big>]) <span style="font-size:80%">Isn't a IP anon</span> 19:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
== Sherry Lansing ==
::Well, you see, I tried to do it on the individual talk page but it didn't exactly work out so well. More names were put in as suggestions. This occurs in the section currently called "Post-presidency (2021-present)" as well as the relative ]. However this name has been changed multiple times until being changed back. As for the when, Pinpointing it exactly is not feasible. The last time an edit occured in this war was sometime before December 26, 15:00 CDT. To examine the talk page go near to the bottom till you see the discussion "Edit War". I thank you for your time. ] (]) 18:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:I imagine, when he takes office on January 20, 2025 - the section-in-question will be named differently. ] (]) 19:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
{{cob}}


== ] ==
The Bio on Sherry Lansing claims she was the first Female Studio head. I believe that Lucille Ball was the First, after buying out Desi Arnez to become the presedent of desilu.
Thank You
Joseph C <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


This article contains a mention of a serious allegation against the living subject that, while reported in reliable sources, has had questions of whether or not it constitutes ] for inclusion on the article's ]. I don't see firm consensus one way or another, but I did remove it a few days ago since consensus is required for inclusion even for verifiable BLP material per ] and ]. I have since had my removal of this content slightly reverted with the content restored, albeit without the subheading that was included for it. I was considering reverting again, per BLP and ], which directly states: "If you are having a dispute about whether to include it, the material is automatically contentious." However, given that per ], what counts as exempt under BLP with regards to the three-revert rule can be controversial, I figured I'd ask here to see what others think would be a good idea. ] (]) 19:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
== nomgqibelo ntombzakhe ==


:Pinging {{ping|Ringerfan23}}, who reverted my edit, for their input. ] (]) 19:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
nurses who treat their patients without care.nurses often get angry with patients when they asked to assist they are sometimes heart less with people it.s not our fault they dont enjoy their jobs for ill patients sometimes when you waiting for help they wont come to assist you and ask whats the issue even if the issue is serious they dont care <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I've commented at the talk page. Hopefully discussion there occurs and this thread can be closed. Cheers! ] (]) 23:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)


== Eternal Blue (album) ==
:How does this relate to Misplaced Pages? I can find no reference to anyone of that name in any of our articles. ] (]) 17:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


This article is an ]. In my review, I brought up a question that hopefully can get resolved here. A band member is cited from for a statement about another band member - specifically, for the statement that the rest of the band met the band member only two days before touring. I've understood that generally, interviews, and especially statements from the interview subjects, are considered primary sources. And in this case, the interview is also by the publisher of the publication, so even the secondary coverage is essentially self-published. My question is, is citing interview statements from band members about fellow band members a violation of BLP policy?
== ] ==


Depending on the outcome here, I also will have a follow-up question about a different set of articles.--] (] &#124; ]) 13:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
This is a short BLP stub about a Indian university head who is currently involved in a local scandal. He's not really A7 worthy, I wouldn't think, but I'm not sure he's truly notable beyond the current scandal. The stub appears to exist mostly because of the scandal. Maybe it's A10 worthy, maybe it can be cleaned up/expanded so that the scandal isn't the core of the article. I'm personally unsure of what to do with it, but I know that it's problematic as-is. - ] (]) 16:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


:Well, we'd want to make sure we're following ]. Is there something particularly contentious or controversial about the claim being made? If not, then we're fine to use it. ] ] 13:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:Given that the sources cited state that there are allegations, whereas our article claims that he is 'guilty', it is certainly problematic. ] (]) 17:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
:Yes, it's a primary source, but the statement about him isn't negative or contentious, and it's clear that it is "According to LaPlante...", so I don't see an issue here. Problems with interviews being primary sources generally occur when they are being used as criteria for notability, which isn't the case here, or when there are disputes about their truthfulness or authenticity, which also isn't the case. ] 13:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::As you (]) know, there's a great deal of disagreement about what "self-published" should mean for WP's purposes, what the consensus practice is for considering something self-published, and whether the current definition reflects that practice. I haven't been around long enough to assess whether using this is/isn't consistent with the consensus practice. As best I can tell, the current definition of self-published + the exceptions are primarily intended to keep editors from using sources that are less likely to be reliable for the content in question, especially for BLP content. This source seems reliable for the fact that LaPlante said it, but uncertain re: whether it's reliable for the content of her statement.
::Seems to me that whether or not one considers this "self-published," policies prevent the use of this source for this content. If you treat it as self-published, it either fails as BLPSPS (if you consider it as self-published by the interviewer/owner), or it fails BLPSELFPUB restriction #2 (if you consider interview responses as essentially self-published by the interviewee, though I think that interpretation is problematic). If you treat it as non-self-published, then because it's a primary source, WP:BLPPRIMARY is in play, which says "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source." A quick search didn't turn up any secondary source discussing this particular content, and if it did, there would be no need to rely on the interview for this specific info.
::Can you get consensus here to include it anyway, since it isn't contentious and the claim is attributed? The first two responses suggest "yes." But, it also doesn't seem like important content for this article (perhaps more DUE on the Spiritbox article, though it's not included there). I think it could easily be omitted, in which case the issue is moot. ] (]) 17:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{U|Black Kite}}, thank you. That's where I would fall on the issue, and where historically I've always fallen, but I wanted to see if my view is reflective of consensus or not.-- ] (] &#124; ]) 20:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
== Elie Wiesel ==


Some experienced eyes would be helpful ] for a long running BLP dispute between mostly IPs and new editors. Some watchlisting would probably be helpful as well. Thanks. ] (]) 13:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear what the issue is here. If you could just revert the article to how it appeared before the most recent edit I would appreciate it.


:On it. ]] 13:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
"Wiesel was born the 21st of Nyestember 0021 A.C.C, Franks Apartment (now Sighetu Marmației), Maramureș, Romania, in the Carpathian Mountains. His parents were Frank and Safari Man. At home Wiesel's family spoke Chromosomian most of the time, but also Chinese. Wiesel's mother, Safari Man, was the daughter of Chin Chin, a celebrated Vizhnitz Hasid and farmer from a nearby village. Chin Chin was active and trusted within the community. In the early years of his life, Chin Chin had spent a few months in jail for having helped Polish Jews who escaped and were hungry.
::I appreciate it, thanks. ] (]) 14:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I think the IP needs blocking. SPA and edit warring. ]] 14:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I've warned them about the edit warring and directed them to the talk page. Hopefully that'll have been a productive use of my time. ] (]) 15:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:The disputed entry impacts on an active libel and defamation case. It seems to me this entry has been deliberately edited to suppress public knowledge of the recent libel action. The amendment from 'abuse allegation' to 'abuse allegations' clearly implies more than one public accuser, a further distortion of the truth that seems highly prejudicial to Mr Stanley (a living person) and directly impacts upon his livelihood. The source cited for these amendments, screenanarchy.com, is a blog entry and, in my opinion, not a valid primary source. I believe these amendments have been made by Finland based journalists promoting a tabloid 'documentary' 'SHADOWLAND', that seeks to exploit this case for financial gain. ] (]) 15:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::Once again - this is matter for the article talk page. You have already been specifically . This is now becoming a competence issue. ]] 16:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
In the , the allegations and response occupy a section of their own, and have two whole paragraphs of prose. ]? ]? I'm not convinced that any particular prose dedicated to this topic is encyclopedically noteworthy, especially without a resolution or other events indicating an enduring biographical significance. It would be a shame to actually wait ten years to see, but I don't think it clearly passes that test yet. ] (]) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
Wiesel's father, Frank, instilled a strong sense of humanism in his son, encouraging him to learn Chromosomian and to read literature, whereas his mother encouraged him to study the Torah. Wiesel has said his father represented reason while his mother Sarah promoted faith.
{{archive top|]: the appropriate forum is now ]. Further talk page and BLPN concerns should be voiced there. This is no longer the place. Cheers. ] (]) 03:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)}}
The article in question is about my uncle, Frank Pando, who has requested that I delete the article written about him. As evidenced in both his article's talk page and by a notification on that actual page, there are plenty of problems with both sourcing and notability. I have tried to put up a suggested deletion notice, but it was promptly taken down by some user who said that the subject's request to delete the article is invalid. I strongly urge my fellow editors to take heed of the notability/citation concerns, as well as my uncle's request, and kindly delete this page. ] (]) 15:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)


:I have started the ] discussion which could lead to it being deleted. You will find the discussion ], and are welcome to join in (though it may help if you read that first link to understand the process first). -- ] (]) 15:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Wiesel had three siblings – older brothers Salamander man and B0ss, and younger brother Prometheus. B0ss and Salamander Man survived the war and were reunited with Wiesel at a French orphanage. They eventually emigrated to North America, with B0ss moving to Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Prometheus, Frank, and Safari Man survived the Lycra Holocaust the Holocaust."
:May I ask what he objects to? Skimming through the article, it's just largely looks like a laundry list of roles he's played. I do t see anything particularly contentious or controversial... ] ] 16:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
::Apparently, the subject may object to his mere presence here. I wouldn't have any gripe with that. Living people of marginal notability certainly have the right not to be here. He might still be mentioned on articles where he played a role. But not a marginal standalone biography online that anyone can edit willy nilly. When you're a private figure, it's a due consideration. ] (]) 02:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


== AfDs and BLPs ==
I was just reading this article the other day and happen to know that his siblings names are not Salamander man and B0ss, and Chinese was not the language most spoken in his household. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


Those watching this page may be interested in this discussion: ]. ] ] 21:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:Vandalism - fixed. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. ] (]) 17:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


== Problematic redirect from one BLP to another: Rabea Massaad ==
== Meredith Viera ==
{{archive top|]: Resolved and recommended for closure. ] (]) 05:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Rob Chapman and ] do not appear to be the same person, and no redirect between them should exist without any explanation at the redirect target, ]. The ] specifies a different redirect, and through a series of ] and a double redirect removal, we're now in this mess. So after a PROD by another user has already been denied on *cough* *cough* procedural grounds, can we finally rectify this situation? The easiest way I can see is still simply deleting the ] page (without prejudice). Thank you. ] (]) 04:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)


:] looks like your forum. ] (]) 05:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Insults Meredith when talking about the Meredith Viera show, referring to her as a racist. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::To clarify, Rob Chapman and Rabea Massaad are separate guitarists who once played together in a band called Dorje. The 2017 AfD for Massad resulted in a redirect to Dorje, and the 2023 AfD for Dorje resulted in a redirect to Chapman. Massad has a fairly robust online presence and is therefore a plausible search term. I mentioned him briefly at ] and edited the redirect to go to that section. By the way, Chapman and Massad are still close associates but the band is defunct. ] (]) 18:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:Can you provide a link or diff? I see no evidence that the article has ever included such a claim. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 11:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
:::I added a reference verifying Massaad's role in Dorje. ] (]) 18:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::The OP is apparently referring to , which you reverted. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:100;">]</span> <sup>''] ''</sup> 15:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
::::So now we have a section of Rob Chapman's article which serves as the main Misplaced Pages mention of the band Dorje. There is also a redirect ] which goes there. My updates the redirect ] to point directly to the section of Chapman's article that mentions the band. Hopefully this is not a controversial edit. Now that Cullen328 has improved the referencing, I don't see anything else to be done, and suggest that this thread be closed. ] (]) 18:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:::That was just a routine reversion of mindless vandalism. I didn't see any reference to racism. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 16:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
:::::Thank you to all for fixing this and not directing me to forum shop. ] (]) 18:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
::::An edit can be both vandalism and racist, {{U|RolandR}}. This one was. ] ] 02:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
:::::Racist? Unless you are inside the editor's head, I don't think that's a fair assesment. Maybe the intent was there, but the edit in question was so incoherent it's best not to make such an accusation in the first place. The bar for making such claims against fellow editors appears to be about an inch high nowadays.]<span style="font-style:italic"><sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub></span> 03:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


== ] ==
== Ahmad Givens (recently deceased) ==


Full of BLP and NPOV vio's, unencyclopedic language and unreliable sources. I removed a couple. &nbsp; Much of article reads like it was copied from a blog post or tabloid, and lack of proof of Native ancestry (and/or or not being enrolled in a tribe) is repeatedly conflated with lying. --] <sup>]</sup> • <sub>(])]</sub> 18:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Ahmad Givens died a couple of weeks ago, at age 33. does say 35 years old, but even its URL has the number 33 in it, which makes me think they know something we, and those other sources, don't. In addition, two single purpose accounts have tried to change it to 35, so there might be something to this. The article is ], and ] is currently a redirect to the television show. Thanks. :> ] (]) 15:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
:... and the two diffs above got reverted , restoring some really poor prose and sources. This is a very sensitive topic area and I don't want to ] anyone, but clearly the article needs more experienced editorial eyes and existing editors need to review ] (and hopefully realize the difference between editing an encyclopedia and human rights advocacy). --] <sup>]</sup> • <sub>(])]</sub> 11:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::Unless a published '''reliable''' source specifically describes the person as a "pretendian", they should not be on that notable examples list at all. BLP is clear on this - any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately.]] 12:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


:One problem is that while the article is about people who falsely claimed Native American heritage, its title is from a pejorative slang term, which it begins by defining. Perhaps a change of title along with moving information about the term Pretendian further down would help.
== Merwin Coad ==
:Listing any notable people who have pretended to have native heritage is a recipe for imbalance and unwieldy length. Instead, we should find sources specifically about the topic to determine which persons are significant to the topic. It's more important to understand why this happens, how frequent it is and what damage it causes than to provide a hit list of perpetrators.
:] (]) 15:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{tq|1=It's more important to understand why this happens, how frequent it is and what damage it causes than to provide a hit list of perpetrators.}} Well said! ]&nbsp;] 15:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
:*The title strikes me as violating ]; I'm skeptical that the term is common enough to pass ] for the phenomenon. If the article is going to cover the phenomenon and not the neologism (and currently, most sources in it don't use the term), it needs to be renamed to a descriptive title. The hard part is coming up with one. --] (]) 16:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
A lengthy requested move discussion already occurred and nothing has changed with the term to warrant a title change in the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Pretendian#Requested_move_21_December_2021 ] <sub>]</sub> 16:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*It seems fairly evident that the neologism and the phenomenon are both notable, but we shouldn't be covering the phenomenon under the neologism: I don't see evidence that "pretendian" is the dominant descriptive term even for high-profile cases of falsely claiming native ancestry. And it goes without saying that an absence of evidence of native ancestry is insufficient to list an individual on that page. ] (]) 17:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
::I mean, if the article is titled "Pretendian", the ''only'' sources that could justify putting someone on the page is a source using the term "Pretendian" specifically. It's a sufficiently emotive neologism that we can't really ] someone into that category - any source that doesn't use the word "Pretendian" is useless. If we want a list of BLPs who fall under the broader concept, we would need a separate article for that; we can't label people with a neologism without a specific source using the term. --] (]) 16:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:That discussion is three years old, but more importantly, it doesn't address the ] / ] issue. We can have an article on a neologism, absolutely; we ''cannot'' label individuals with a negative neologism unless we have a source using ''that precise word'' to refer to them. Any living person named in that article must have at least one high-quality source calling them a "Pretendian", using that exact word. Anyone who doesn't have that source backing up the fact that they have been called a "Pretendian", specifically, needs to be removed immediately until / unless that source is found - sources that use other words are useless (and ] / ] in context.) --] (]) 16:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::The term "pretendian" is used frequently in news sources (some Canadian news outlets have dedicated reporters on a dedicated "pretendian beat". The term is used in academia (, , to weed out the Spanish-language discussions). ''Indigenous identity fraud'' is used but not nearly as often. If you want to suggest a name change, the talk page of ] would be the place to do it. ] (]) 16:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::In order for a BLP to be included in the notables examples list though, the derogatory term "pretendian" needs to be used frequently and widely published in high-quality reliable sources describing that individual as such, in order for the BLP to be included in that section per BLP and LABEL.]] 18:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:This is a complicated issue (especially from a BLP perspective) and it seems like a lot of the long form sources note just how complicated an issue this is. I think that others may be right in saying that there may be multiple overlapping notable and perhaps less notable topics here which can be organized in a number of ways. ] (]) 20:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)


== ] ==
Merwin Coad is my maternal biological grandfather, and my maternal biological grandmother, his second wife, was Carol Faye Farnsworth, not Peters.She is a relative of the inventor Philo T. Farnsworth, who designed and built the first all electronic working television system. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


I'd appreciate it if some of you BLP experts could have a look at this article. I pruned it some already and found a curious mix of promotional language and possibly overstated accusations. Note: I just blocked an edit warrior from whitewashing it. Thank you so much, ] (]) 02:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
== Denis Avey, British war hero ==


:I've had a small prune and clean up. ]] 10:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
The autobiography by ], '']'', is undergoing some edit warring. Please see ] regarding ] possibly being undermined. Other opinions would be useful.--] (]) 01:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:34, 31 December 2024

Misplaced Pages noticeboard for discussion of biographies of living people
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here. Shortcuts

    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.

    Search this noticeboard & archives
    Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Additional notes:

    Notes for volunteers
    How do I mark an incident as resolved or addressed?
    You can use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section containing the report. At least leave a comment about a BLP report, if doing so might spare other editors the task of needlessly repeating some of what you have done.
    More ways to help
    Today's random unreferenced BLP
    Lionel Cann (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 31 Dec 2024 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF)
    Centralized discussion




    Martin_Short

    This text under Personal Life in the Martin Short biography is poorly fact checked. Note refers to gossip regarding Shorts love life. Should be removed entirely.

    Source: https://decider.com/2024/10/24/meryl-streep-martin-short-only-murders-in-the-building-romance/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMBLE (talk • contribs) 11:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    It has been removed. Decider is not an appropriate source to put weight on. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
    This user doesn’t exist anymore, and the Meryl Streep article says the same thing, plus if you actually look into it there’s a lot more supporting it than just that one article so there’s no reason it can’t be included. That article actually includes quotes from the showrunner himself in fact. EvaSofie (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Have any reliable sources actually reported that it is a confirmed relationship? The most recent reliable sources seem to be framing it as a rumour (), which fails WP:NOTGOSSIP in addition to BLP sourcing concerns. -- Patar knight - /contributions 20:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Even the Decider source says "Short and Streep have not publicly commented on their relationship status". Tabloids are expected to pursue rumors and innuendo; Misplaced Pages is not. Schazjmd (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    We now have new accounts trying to edit-war the material into the article. I have reverted again, but will protect if this carries on. Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Călin Georgescu

    What do you say about ? tgeorgescu (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    For those interested in beating a dead horse, here's a link to the prior discussion from two weeks ago, as well as a courtesy link to the article's talk page discussion: Talk:Călin Georgescu#New Age. – notwally (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    Your argument was that I used low-quality sources. Your argument no longer holds true.
    So, basically, the burden of proof is according to you infinitely high. This man preaches New Age in public, but since he denies he is preaching New Age, it cannot be stated in his article. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    One of my objections to your content was the quality of the sources. You adding in another opinion article does not address that concern. Another objection was that you are making claims about a living person's personal religious beliefs that they dispute. I don't think that is appropriate, and if it is, then it would need very high quality sources supporting any claims about that, IMO. A third objection was that this content has been disputed and no one else has supported including it except for you, which is far from demonstrating there is a consensus for inclusion. – notwally (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not a mind reader, so I do not profess to know his private thoughts. But journalists, academics, and theologians have analyzed his public discourse. There is a difference between private thoughts and public discourse. We cannot investigate the former, but we can know the latter. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    A bishop of the Romanian Orthodox Church has lambasted the danger of the New Age in the context of the Romanian presidential elections. He did not explicitly name CG, but all informed readers know there was no other candidate for whom New Age was an issue. See .
    This is getting serious, especially seen that the lower ROC clergy made political campaign for CG. The leadership of the Church played politically neutral. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Chronicles (magazine) has a lot of sympathy for CG, but they also notice he is preaching New Age. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    RSN discussion about use of a self-published source (The InSneider) in film articles

    Posting a relevant discussion which might touch on WP:BLPSPS: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Jeff_Sneider_/_The_InSneider -- Patar knight - /contributions 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

    Moira Deeming

    There’s been a recent update of Moira Deeming’s DOB as consequence of an affidavit that she filled as consequence of a lawsuit initiated by her. What is the more pertinent policy? WP:BLPPRIMARY which says we shouldn’t use court transcripts or other court documents in BLPs, or WP:BLPSELFPUB which says that because it’s an uncontentious fact which the subject has written about themselves that we can use it? Please see discussion at Talk:Moira Deeming#Date of birth. TarnishedPath 10:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Abubakar Atiku Bagudu

    A heads up on something worth keeping an eye on. A new user is removing the (sourced) section on this article entitled "Corruption". It could probably do with someone more competent than me double checking the quality of the sources. The edit summary of their second blanking of the section reads: "This information is misleading and it has no basis to be uploaded. The matter is currently in court and should be removed from the subjects profile until adjudicated upon by a court of competent jurisdiction." which is not a legal threat, per se, but does have a chilling effect. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Potential Bias and Edit Warring on “David and Stephen Flynn” Biography

    Hi everyone,

    I am reaching out to request assistance with the article about David and Stephen Flynn on Misplaced Pages. There appears to be an ongoing issue with 2 sections: "Careers" and "Health Advice & Public Response"

    Several attempts have been made to improve the neutrality of the section by adding balanced context and reliable sources to reflect differing perspectives, but these edits are repeatedly reverted by an editor (or editors) without meaningful discussion or engagement. The old section "medical misinformation" is highly one-sided and does not adhere to Misplaced Pages’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.

    For the "careers" section, the editor(s) keep deleting that they've stopped collaborating with Russell Brand and to make it seem they still support him. Although the original comments were made prior to recent allegations against Russell Brand.

    Specific changes made: 1) The section title, “Medical Misinformation,” is sensational and prejudges the content. I have proposed a more neutral alternative (“Health Advice and Public Response”) to better reflect the material. 2) Revisions have added reliable sources, such as peer-reviewed studies and mainstream media articles, to provide context and balance, but these have been reverted without clear justification. 3) Efforts to include clarifications about actions taken by David and Stephen Flynn, such as their acknowledgment of errors and removal of contentious content, have also been removed or ignored.

    I believe this issue warrants review by neutral, experienced editors to ensure the article aligns with Misplaced Pages’s guidelines on neutrality, verifiability, and respect for biographies of living persons.

    I would greatly appreciate guidance or intervention from the community to address this matter fairly. I am happy to provide details of the edits and sources I have proposed.

    Thank you for your time and assistance. SabLovesSunshine (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Related: WP:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#David_and_Stephen_Flynn Schazjmd (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks... I have responded there as I can see that person has gone in to change the wiki page again. Not sure what more we can do. SabLovesSunshine (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
    I've started a convo on the article talk page. Please continue there. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Discussion at WT:DYK regarding Diddy parties

    An editor has started a discussion "about the WP:BLP aspects" of a DYK nomination at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know#Diddy parties. Feel free to offer input there, Rjj (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Edit War on Trump

    IP User should keep discussion on Donald Trump talk page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    So it has come to this hasn't it? This incident all started on November 5, 2024 when Donald Trump won the recent election. Following this, an edit war ensued. This occurs in the section after the 2020 United States presidential election in which Trump lost. People keep editing the title, changing it to "Interpresidency", "First post-presidency", or most recently "Post-presidency". I see this is taking place on a Extended confirmed article. I request it be upgraded to an appropriate level. 2601:483:400:1CD0:7D95:FF0A:CEC6:A8AD (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Care to point to exactly what / where / when? And really, don't bring this sort of thing here unless absolutely necessary and if it can't be resolved on the relevant talk pages. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 19:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Well, you see, I tried to do it on the individual talk page but it didn't exactly work out so well. More names were put in as suggestions. This occurs in the section currently called "Post-presidency (2021-present)" as well as the relative talk page. However this name has been changed multiple times until being changed back. As for the when, Pinpointing it exactly is not feasible. The last time an edit occured in this war was sometime before December 26, 15:00 CDT. To examine the talk page go near to the bottom till you see the discussion "Edit War". I thank you for your time. 2601:483:400:1CD0:B614:68CF:9223:D88F (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    I imagine, when he takes office on January 20, 2025 - the section-in-question will be named differently. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Maynard James Keenan

    This article contains a mention of a serious allegation against the living subject that, while reported in reliable sources, has had questions of whether or not it constitutes due weight for inclusion on the article's talk page. I don't see firm consensus one way or another, but I did remove it a few days ago since consensus is required for inclusion even for verifiable BLP material per WP:BLP and WP:V. I have since had my removal of this content slightly reverted with the content restored, albeit without the subheading that was included for it. I was considering reverting again, per BLP and WP:STATUSQUO, which directly states: "If you are having a dispute about whether to include it, the material is automatically contentious." However, given that per WP:3RRBLP, what counts as exempt under BLP with regards to the three-revert rule can be controversial, I figured I'd ask here to see what others think would be a good idea. JeffSpaceman (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Pinging @Ringerfan23:, who reverted my edit, for their input. JeffSpaceman (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    I've commented at the talk page. Hopefully discussion there occurs and this thread can be closed. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 23:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

    Eternal Blue (album)

    This article is an FAC. In my review, I brought up a question that hopefully can get resolved here. A band member is cited from this interview for a statement about another band member - specifically, for the statement that the rest of the band met the band member only two days before touring. I've understood that generally, interviews, and especially statements from the interview subjects, are considered primary sources. And in this case, the interview is also by the publisher of the publication, so even the secondary coverage is essentially self-published. My question is, is citing interview statements from band members about fellow band members a violation of BLP policy?

    Depending on the outcome here, I also will have a follow-up question about a different set of articles.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Well, we'd want to make sure we're following WP:PRIMARY. Is there something particularly contentious or controversial about the claim being made? If not, then we're fine to use it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, it's a primary source, but the statement about him isn't negative or contentious, and it's clear that it is "According to LaPlante...", so I don't see an issue here. Problems with interviews being primary sources generally occur when they are being used as criteria for notability, which isn't the case here, or when there are disputes about their truthfulness or authenticity, which also isn't the case. Black Kite (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    As you (3family6) know, there's a great deal of disagreement about what "self-published" should mean for WP's purposes, what the consensus practice is for considering something self-published, and whether the current definition reflects that practice. I haven't been around long enough to assess whether using this is/isn't consistent with the consensus practice. As best I can tell, the current definition of self-published + the exceptions are primarily intended to keep editors from using sources that are less likely to be reliable for the content in question, especially for BLP content. This source seems reliable for the fact that LaPlante said it, but uncertain re: whether it's reliable for the content of her statement.
    Seems to me that whether or not one considers this "self-published," policies prevent the use of this source for this content. If you treat it as self-published, it either fails as BLPSPS (if you consider it as self-published by the interviewer/owner), or it fails BLPSELFPUB restriction #2 (if you consider interview responses as essentially self-published by the interviewee, though I think that interpretation is problematic). If you treat it as non-self-published, then because it's a primary source, WP:BLPPRIMARY is in play, which says "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source." A quick search didn't turn up any secondary source discussing this particular content, and if it did, there would be no need to rely on the interview for this specific info.
    Can you get consensus here to include it anyway, since it isn't contentious and the claim is attributed? The first two responses suggest "yes." But, it also doesn't seem like important content for this article (perhaps more DUE on the Spiritbox article, though it's not included there). I think it could easily be omitted, in which case the issue is moot. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Black Kite, thank you. That's where I would fall on the issue, and where historically I've always fallen, but I wanted to see if my view is reflective of consensus or not.-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Richard Stanley (director)

    Some experienced eyes would be helpful here for a long running BLP dispute between mostly IPs and new editors. Some watchlisting would probably be helpful as well. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    On it. GiantSnowman 13:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    I appreciate it, thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    I think the IP needs blocking. SPA and edit warring. GiantSnowman 14:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    I've warned them about the edit warring and directed them to the talk page. Hopefully that'll have been a productive use of my time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    The disputed entry impacts on an active libel and defamation case. It seems to me this entry has been deliberately edited to suppress public knowledge of the recent libel action. The amendment from 'abuse allegation' to 'abuse allegations' clearly implies more than one public accuser, a further distortion of the truth that seems highly prejudicial to Mr Stanley (a living person) and directly impacts upon his livelihood. The source cited for these amendments, screenanarchy.com, is a blog entry and, in my opinion, not a valid primary source. I believe these amendments have been made by Finland based journalists promoting a tabloid 'documentary' 'SHADOWLAND', that seeks to exploit this case for financial gain. 79.200.21.192 (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Once again - this is matter for the article talk page. You have already been specifically directed to that discussion. This is now becoming a competence issue. GiantSnowman 16:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    In the revision that stands right now, the allegations and response occupy a section of their own, and have two whole paragraphs of prose. WP:UNDUE? WP:NOTNEWS? I'm not convinced that any particular prose dedicated to this topic is encyclopedically noteworthy, especially without a resolution or other events indicating an enduring biographical significance. It would be a shame to actually wait ten years to see, but I don't think it clearly passes that test yet. JFHJr (㊟) 04:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    Frank Pando

    WP:NAC: the appropriate forum is now the AfD discussion. Further talk page and BLPN concerns should be voiced there. This is no longer the place. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The article in question is about my uncle, Frank Pando, who has requested that I delete the article written about him. As evidenced in both his article's talk page and by a notification on that actual page, there are plenty of problems with both sourcing and notability. I have tried to put up a suggested deletion notice, but it was promptly taken down by some user who said that the subject's request to delete the article is invalid. I strongly urge my fellow editors to take heed of the notability/citation concerns, as well as my uncle's request, and kindly delete this page. Crazy Horse 1876 (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    I have started the Articles For Deletion discussion which could lead to it being deleted. You will find the discussion here, and are welcome to join in (though it may help if you read that first link to understand the process first). -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    May I ask what he objects to? Skimming through the article, it's just largely looks like a laundry list of roles he's played. I do t see anything particularly contentious or controversial... Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    Apparently, the subject may object to his mere presence here. I wouldn't have any gripe with that. Living people of marginal notability certainly have the right not to be here. He might still be mentioned on articles where he played a role. But not a marginal standalone biography online that anyone can edit willy nilly. When you're a private figure, it's a due consideration. JFHJr (㊟) 02:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    AfDs and BLPs

    Those watching this page may be interested in this discussion: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab)#NOINDEX AfDs on living people. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

    Problematic redirect from one BLP to another: Rabea Massaad

    WP:NAC: Resolved and recommended for closure. JFHJr (㊟) 05:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Rob Chapman and Rabea Massaad do not appear to be the same person, and no redirect between them should exist without any explanation at the redirect target, Rob Chapman (guitarist). The AfD of Rabea Massaad specifies a different redirect, and through a series of deletions and a double redirect removal, we're now in this mess. So after a PROD by another user has already been denied on *cough* *cough* procedural grounds, can we finally rectify this situation? The easiest way I can see is still simply deleting the Rabea Massaad page (without prejudice). Thank you. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:EAC0 (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

    WP:RFD looks like your forum. JFHJr (㊟) 05:07, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    To clarify, Rob Chapman and Rabea Massaad are separate guitarists who once played together in a band called Dorje. The 2017 AfD for Massad resulted in a redirect to Dorje, and the 2023 AfD for Dorje resulted in a redirect to Chapman. Massad has a fairly robust online presence and is therefore a plausible search term. I mentioned him briefly at Rob Chapman (guitarist)#Dorje and edited the redirect to go to that section. By the way, Chapman and Massad are still close associates but the band is defunct. Cullen328 (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    I added a reference verifying Massaad's role in Dorje. Cullen328 (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    So now we have a section of Rob Chapman's article which serves as the main Misplaced Pages mention of the band Dorje. There is also a redirect Dorje (band) which goes there. My recent edit updates the redirect Dorje (band) to point directly to the section of Chapman's article that mentions the band. Hopefully this is not a controversial edit. Now that Cullen328 has improved the referencing, I don't see anything else to be done, and suggest that this thread be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you to all for fixing this and not directing me to forum shop. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:55C6:F066:7215:3C99 (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Pretendian

    Full of BLP and NPOV vio's, unencyclopedic language and unreliable sources. I removed a couple.   Much of article reads like it was copied from a blog post or tabloid, and lack of proof of Native ancestry (and/or or not being enrolled in a tribe) is repeatedly conflated with lying. --Middle 8 • (s)talk 18:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

    ... and the two diffs above got reverted , restoring some really poor prose and sources. This is a very sensitive topic area and I don't want to bite anyone, but clearly the article needs more experienced editorial eyes and existing editors need to review WP:BLP (and hopefully realize the difference between editing an encyclopedia and human rights advocacy). --Middle 8 • (s)talk 11:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    Unless a published reliable source specifically describes the person as a "pretendian", they should not be on that notable examples list at all. BLP is clear on this - any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    One problem is that while the article is about people who falsely claimed Native American heritage, its title is from a pejorative slang term, which it begins by defining. Perhaps a change of title along with moving information about the term Pretendian further down would help.
    Listing any notable people who have pretended to have native heritage is a recipe for imbalance and unwieldy length. Instead, we should find sources specifically about the topic to determine which persons are significant to the topic. It's more important to understand why this happens, how frequent it is and what damage it causes than to provide a hit list of perpetrators.
    TFD (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    It's more important to understand why this happens, how frequent it is and what damage it causes than to provide a hit list of perpetrators. Well said! Schazjmd (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    • The title strikes me as violating WP:POVTITLE; I'm skeptical that the term is common enough to pass WP:COMMONNAME for the phenomenon. If the article is going to cover the phenomenon and not the neologism (and currently, most sources in it don't use the term), it needs to be renamed to a descriptive title. The hard part is coming up with one. --Aquillion (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    A lengthy requested move discussion already occurred and nothing has changed with the term to warrant a title change in the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Pretendian#Requested_move_21_December_2021  oncamera  (talk page) 16:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

    • It seems fairly evident that the neologism and the phenomenon are both notable, but we shouldn't be covering the phenomenon under the neologism: I don't see evidence that "pretendian" is the dominant descriptive term even for high-profile cases of falsely claiming native ancestry. And it goes without saying that an absence of evidence of native ancestry is insufficient to list an individual on that page. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
    I mean, if the article is titled "Pretendian", the only sources that could justify putting someone on the page is a source using the term "Pretendian" specifically. It's a sufficiently emotive neologism that we can't really WP:SYNTH someone into that category - any source that doesn't use the word "Pretendian" is useless. If we want a list of BLPs who fall under the broader concept, we would need a separate article for that; we can't label people with a neologism without a specific source using the term. --Aquillion (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    That discussion is three years old, but more importantly, it doesn't address the WP:BLP / WP:LABEL issue. We can have an article on a neologism, absolutely; we cannot label individuals with a negative neologism unless we have a source using that precise word to refer to them. Any living person named in that article must have at least one high-quality source calling them a "Pretendian", using that exact word. Anyone who doesn't have that source backing up the fact that they have been called a "Pretendian", specifically, needs to be removed immediately until / unless that source is found - sources that use other words are useless (and WP:OR / WP:SYNTH in context.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    The term "pretendian" is used frequently in news sources (some Canadian news outlets have dedicated reporters on a dedicated "pretendian beat". The term is used in academia (Google Scholar with Indigenous, Google Scholar with Native, to weed out the Spanish-language discussions). Indigenous identity fraud is used but not nearly as often. If you want to suggest a name change, the talk page of Talk:Pretendian would be the place to do it. Yuchitown (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    In order for a BLP to be included in the notables examples list though, the derogatory term "pretendian" needs to be used frequently and widely published in high-quality reliable sources describing that individual as such, in order for the BLP to be included in that section per BLP and LABEL. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    This is a complicated issue (especially from a BLP perspective) and it seems like a lot of the long form sources note just how complicated an issue this is. I think that others may be right in saying that there may be multiple overlapping notable and perhaps less notable topics here which can be organized in a number of ways. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    Vinod Sekhar

    I'd appreciate it if some of you BLP experts could have a look at this article. I pruned it some already and found a curious mix of promotional language and possibly overstated accusations. Note: I just blocked an edit warrior from whitewashing it. Thank you so much, Drmies (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    I've had a small prune and clean up. GiantSnowman 10:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    Categories: