Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:05, 29 January 2017

• WP:BLPN
• WP:BLP/N
• WP:BLPNB
• WP:BLP/NB

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Additional notes:

• Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
• For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
• Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

|- ! colspan="3" style="background: #CAE4FF; font-size: 110%; border: 1px lightgray solid; padding: 0.5rem;" |

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Sippenhaft and Donald Trump

Talk:Sippenhaft.

At Sippenhaft 3 editors are in favour of including from the following source

• John Fund, Trump’s Call to Kill Family Members of Terrorists Is Quarter-Baked, National Review December 18, 2015,

information in that article citing directly D Trump's idea not only terrorists but also terrorists' kin and family should be killed. The article on sippenhaft deals precisely with this notion. The source likens Trump's position to that of sippenhaft.

The minority say that to liken Trump's position (kill terrorists' kin) to that of sippenhaft (kill or punish criminals' kin), even if reliably sourced and used with attribution, is a BLP violation. Is it? Nishidani (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to expand a bit, on why it might be a potential BLP issue is that the article only includes actual cases of Sippenhaft, not proposed. So in a way, if you include only Trump's statement as a proposed usage of Sippenhaft into an article of actual usage, then that might be BLP and UNDUE. And besides, even if it's not BLP, it should not be in the article since the article is only actual usages and including proposed is off-topic. We don't include every proposed statement made in history and we shouldn't start just for Trump. Sir Joseph 17:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

You also did not include the required template on the article's talk page. Failure to do so might be seen as trying to hide the discussion from certain talk page participants. Sir Joseph 17:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean when you say "the article only includes actual cases." Who decided it includes only "actual" cases? It appears the consensus of editors is that the article should include both proposed, as well as practiced ("actual"), cases of Sippenhaft, and that what constitutes a "proposed" case and what constitutes an "actual" case, and whether each case should be included, needs to be decided by the normal consensus process, not because two editors (SJ and Bradv) arbitrarily decided that only one "kind" of Sippenhaft should be included. Nobody on the talk page suggested that we "include every proposed statement made in history" -- that is a strawman. The consensus is only that a political candidate, who is now the chief executive of the most powerful country on the planet, and has the power and authority to implement the policies he so passionately advocated during his campaign, merits inclusion. Ijon Tichy (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to rehash talk page arguments. As I pointed out to Nishidani many, many times, if he wants to include the Trump section (regardless of BLP issues) he should follow procedures, namely dispute resolution, mediation, and RFC. A 3-2 is not a consensus. Sir Joseph 18:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• The proposed text would be a WP:BLP violation in my estimation because Trump's campaign statement is not an example of sippenhaft. Also, citing only one source would be WP:UNDUE.- MrX 12:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

There is something very odd in all of this. Not only myself, but the very editors who monitor I/P pages with an ethnonationalist defensiveness, editing exclusively in the interests of the image of one party to the conflict, have no problem in listing every remark threatening Jews collectively on the pages related to those people. If Hassan Nasrallah states that Israel: "is a cancer that must be eradicated.” we put in on the page,-I'd be the last person to object- and do not secondguess the source by defensively arguing:’it’s a BLP violation since there is no evidence he would treat Israelis as a surgeon treats cancer cells.' If Dov Lior declares:’ Jewish women should not use sperm donated by a non-Jewish man, and a baby born through such an insemination will have the "negative genetic traits that characterize non-Jews", . .Gentile sperm leads to barbaric offspring". we put it on his page, and don’t try to censor it. What's so special about the president of the United States?

Misplaced Pages documents scrupulously, when neutral, important statements made by people who direct the affairs of the world, threats or otherwise, because they are part of the notable public record.Attempts to introduce rationalizations to exclude such comments are nothing but tokens of editorial partisanship, wishing to cleanse one kind of political figure’s image, while (invariably) dredging up muck (truthful muck) to stick on the other side. I don’t care what political, ethnic profile a public figure has: if (s)he states (verifiably) something that is widely reported and criticized, it goes into the record irrespective of the costs to reputation or the potential political spin this might lend itself to.

I go by reliable sources. If the source is reliable - no one contests that Trump said what he said- and the source states that (a) the kin of terrorists should be killed (Trump) and (b) the notable (conservative) political analyst notes that this is an example of the doctrine of kin liability, which in German and more broadly (in discussions of the practice in North Korea/the Soviet Union, totalitarian regimes etc., is called sippenhaft), then I add that view. It is not our task to say whether 'Trump's campaign statement is not an example of sippenhaft' - that would be an example of an editor making a subjective (and flawed, in my view) interpretative challenge to what a reliably sourced commentator states. Editors do not have a right to challenge the putative veracity of what reliable sources say, unless the interpretation is demonstrably unfactual. Trump said: 'the kin of terrorists can be killed'. Sippenhaft involves punishing the kin of people deemed culpable of some act'. The terms are identical, and the commentator's gloss is not an extraordinary claim. As shown on the talk page, German sources reporting Trump's remark naturally said it was what they call 'sippenhaft'. (Sie nehmen damit eine ganze Religionsgemeinschaft und die Angehörigen einer Religionsgemeinschaft in Sippenhaft.)(2) or Silke Mülherr, Malala verurteilt Trumps „Kommentare voller Hass“ Die Zeit 16 December 2015, which relates sippenhaft implications in other remarks by Trump regarding Muslims collectively.Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you are saying—particularly the part about censoring comments just because he is the president. However, there are several reasons why this statement doesn't fit in the article.

1. This isn't a generic article about kin liability or collective punishment. It is specifically referring to the German concept of sippenhaft.

2. The source you have provided (John Fund's editorial) is the only source that compares Trump's statement to sippenhaft, and it doesn't even make a direct comparison at all. The word sippenhaft is mentioned only once in the editorial, and it's in the context of Nazi Germany, not Trump. If this really is a straightforward example it should be trivial to find multiple sources for this comparison.

3. This article includes exclusively real examples of Sippenhaft or kin liability—Trump's statement is merely a proposal. Not only has it not happened yet, but it's very unlikely that it will—Trump says a lot of stuff that is completely preposterous and will never happen.

4. I think that all examples of kin liability that are not connected to the German concept and German usage should be removed from this article. Perhaps there should be a generic article about kin liability, or perhaps these examples should be moved into collective punishment. Either way, it is my contention that they should not be here. Bradv 15:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Whats the BLP violation? That Trump's views have been compared to Sippenhaft? Unless there is any doubt about what he meant - advocating collective punishment is certainly within the definitions of Sippenhaft. I wouldnt include it based on one source however, as that hits UNDUE. I cant see any BLP violation here though if it was. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Sir Joe/Bradv. We come here for third opinions. I don't think it salutary to rehash the talk page here. Third parties will read it, and make up their minds. I'll just note that sippenhaft means 'kin liability', and the page deals with this in several historical contexts, not just Germany (b) I gave you the German links which clearly supplement what the National Interest commentator stated: in German reportage, Trump's remarks were naturally identified as sippenhaft(ung), in prestigious centralist newspapers like Die Zeit, underlining its relevance. You have misread the paper: it clearly contextualizes Trump's views as sippenhaft (c) the distinction 'real example'/'stated belief' has no basis in wiki policy as both of you have been reminded often. (d) as long as the page stands as it is, the fourth objection is hypothetical. In any case, no intelligible case, in my view and that of several editors now, has been made to show why what Trump stated cannot be noted here because it violates his rights to privacy or whatever as a living person. This, as I showed, would mean 99% of I/P articles alone are in violation of WP:BLP, and no one, of whatever political persuasion, has noticed it. Now, can we just wait for further external independent input?Nishidani (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

And yet you're the one posting paragraphs. You will notice my comment up above, asking not to rehash the talk page. And again, I've asked you not to call me Sir Joe. And again, you need to stop insulting others with your claim of why people edit.Sir Joseph 19:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Could we have more neutral external comment please. So far MrX says it is a WP:BLP violation, while Only in death does duty end says it is not.Nishidani (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Besides treading into forbidden BLP territory, the article itself violates WP:SYN. For example, a North Korea prison camp is mentioned as a "modern" example of Sippenhaft, but the source does not make the comparison. Well, we cannot do the same thing WRT Trump. (I intend to revert that material once this issue is settled.) Now if a modern reliable academic source made a connection between Trump's supposed policy and Sippenhaft, then that particular source might be acceptable in a Trump-policy related article. But the topic of Sippenhaft is the historical practice, not un-sourced modern analogies; especially when the analogies have political motivations. We cannot let Sippenhaft be used to criticize (or praise) Trump in Misplaced Pages's voice. – S. Rich (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Here's one of the published sources that directly calls Trump's views Sippenhaft Here is another SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC) These two sources directly cite Trump's policies in discusion of Sippenhaft so they can be cited to resolve any concern as to SYNTH or OR. Trump is a public figure who has discussed the issue extensively and there is no BLP violation. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, the sources do not directly cite Trump's policies in discusion of Sippenhaft. The "Welt" source mentions Sippenhaft in discussion of a proposed ban on Muslim immigration. The "National Review" mentions Sippenhaft in discussion of terrorists and "take out their families". - Ryk72 12:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

(The following is copy-pasted from SPECIFICO's user talk page - Ijon Tichy (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC))

I believe that editors are claiming that no RS connects Trump to Sippenhaft and that the disputed content is therefore SYNTH and a BLP violation. However I believe that the two sources I cited do explicitly link Trump to Sippenhaft, so that they can be used to rebut the SYNTH claim. At any rate, as a public figure who's spoken at length on this topic, I don't think Trump could credibly claim that these sources are libeling him, so I see no BLP violation. Feel free to copy this to the board if you think it helps clarify my remarks. SPECIFICO talk 22:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Not necessarily seeing a BLP violation here. Would editors opining that there is a violation be able to describe, with reference to the policy, that violation? I do consider that there is merit in the suggestion that an inclusion at Sippenhaft, on the basis of only the sources mentioned thus far, would be undue. - Ryk72 12:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment --As a non involved editor,I would state that the inclusion of the disputed content is not a BLP violation .But, I would strongly object to it being included in the article without something of the sort of a RFC, since I too find it to be WP:UNDUE.Winged Blades 14:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It would be helpful if editors claiming it is WP:Undue clarified why noting on the sippenhaft page that sources identified Trump's twice repeated (Dec.2015/March 2016) assertion as an example of the notion is undue on that page, rather than correlated with the topic of that article. This has nothing to do with Trump per se, but with sourced documentation of the use of the term sippenhaft to define killing or punishing the kin of people deemed criminals.Nishidani (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Just to state my position clearly for Nishidani above: 1. I do not think its a BLP violation if reliable sources have compared Trumps statements to Sippenhaft - even a fairly tightly defined Sippenhaft covers his statements. 2. It may be an UNDUE issue on any Trump-focused page to include Sippenhaft material - Presidents make a lot of statements, not all of them are worth covering on their biography. 3. I dont think it is an UNDUE issue at all on the Sippenhaft article that the leader of the biggest Democracy on the planet holds those views. Its certainly relevant and encyclopedic that a current (democratic) world leader does so, regardless of who it is. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Leader of the biggest democracy on the planet? Narendra Modi might be sad to be so overlooked. :) - Ryk72 16:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It is actually irrelevant that it is "the leader of the biggest Democracy on the planet". What matters is the distinction between what is and what isn't. In my opinion Sippenhaft is not language. In my opinion Sippenhaft is an act. Were the United States to at some future time institute Sippenhaft, at that time this issue should be revisited. Bus stop (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

UNDUE is mostly a 'is this relevant?' test. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Consensus to include?

We appear to have consensus to include with the direct sources cited. Is this correct? SPECIFICO talk 15:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I would say there is at least rough consensus, likely clear consensus, for "not a BLP violation". Given the concerns about UNDUE, consensus for inclusion seems less clear. NOTE: I have opined in this discussion, above. - Ryk72 16:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not an instance of Sippenhaft. "You have to take out their families" is a reference to an act, that if carried out, would constitute Sippenhaft. But it has not been carried out. Bus stop (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It would be a BLP violation to say "Trump has suggested carrying out Sippenhaft" (even with attribution), as Trump has never actually said that word. It would not be an issue to say "Trump has said 'You have to take out their families', which (some commentators) have compared to Sippenhaft", since it reports what Trump actually said, and then attributes opinion on what that means to a commentator. The question left on the topic is how much of this view point (the comparison to Sippenhaft) is appropriate per UNDUE/FRINGE, which falls outside the BLP arena. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Correct about attribution. It's certainly not UNDUE and has nothing to do with FRINGE. Trump has repeatedly explained his policy in this matter. The term Sippenhaft is not widely discussed and therefore it's to be expected that there would be fewer reports that use this term. However the sources are respected mainstream sources, not marginal ones as one user claimed. SPECIFICO talk 16:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

There are no other instances in the Sippenhaft article of verbal references to Sippenhaft in the absence of actual acts of Sippenhaft. Why should we break new ground in now including a quote from Trump that does not have a counterpart in reality? The United States has not punished the families of terrorists. Bus stop (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no actual 'act of Sippenhaft' related to Russia in its section either, being as it is just describing them passing Sippenhaft like laws, so this is a non-argument. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

"Sippenhaft like laws" warrant inclusion. It is trivial to see the substantiality of laws that legitimize the punishing of the families of for instance terrorists. This has not transpired in the United States. Bus stop (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The UNDUE/FRINGE issue is not what Trump said (it's repeated in many many papers), but it is related to how many commentators (and their relative importance) have compared what Trump said to Sippenhaft. If only one op-ed from a small city newspaper made the connection, it's FRINGE. If several major city paper op-eds have said it, there's enough weight to include it. Same thing if a major Democratic leader/official, or a high-ranking foreign official/leader said it (Which likely will be picked up by a number of sources). That weight has to be evaluated. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• To clarify further, its clear there is consensus this is not a BLP issue if sourced and attributed correctly per Masem. If it *should* be in the relevant article is another question best left to the article talkpage. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• This is no longer a BLP issue. E.g., the concerns about Trump are resolved because Trump is no longer mentioned in the article. Accordingly, let's close this discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not it. The concern is resolved because we have RS now making the direct connection and we can reinsert the Sippenhaft/Trump text in the article. That was the purpose of this thread. SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

When numerous policies are waved, one following the other, in objections to an edit, outside editors should exercise great caution. This was repeatedly objected to on flimsy grounds, WP:BLP, that the majority have determined is wholly irrelevant. But then WP:Undue was mentioned by those who made that 'irrelevant' call. I can't see why it is undue.Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that other, uninvolved, editors, who did not object on BLP grounds, consider that there is some validity to an objection on NPOV@WEIGHT grounds. It is likely that those editors do not consider that inclusion would fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. It is likely that they hold such an opinion because in all of the sources which discuss Sippenhaft, Trump's comments are mentioned in a vanishingly small minority; and in all of the sources which discuss Trump's comments, Sippenhaft is mentioned in a vanishingly small minority. - Ryk72 06:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Well it would be undue in a trump article - its basically one of many silly things he has said. Frankly we should start a dedicated article 'Things Trump believes which dont belong in a civilized society'. Until that time however, his comments on the effectiveness are torture are more relevant. I cant see any real reason it should be excluded from the Sippenhaft article though. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't see why the fact that Trump is mentioned in relationship to sippenhaft suddenly creates problems. The proposal was made by rightwing Swiss politicians in, I think, 2008, reviving the idea of punishing the kin of immigrants, which immediately rang bells of sippenhaft. If that was included no one would object. But as soon as Trump says a similar thing, on Misplaced Pages, it becomes problematical. Very odd. I would include it whenever kinship liability policies punishing kin are referred to by mentioning sippenhaft, though strictly speaking, I think this is a confusion of hypernym and hyponym. Conceptually, sippenhaft is the Germanic tradition of kin liability, which is the hyponym of group punishment, which is a subset of collective punishment. To assert that a member of a conceptual set is unique, when it is an instance of a more general principle, is to fall prey to linguistic exceptionalism or nominalism in the loose sense, meaning no language-specific word even if it has close even precise affinities with words for the general idea in other languages, can be explored outside of its specific cultural-linguistic milieu. Thus one could never mention ethnocracy on a page on apartheid unless apartheid was referred to in terms of that word, ethnocracy. (Apartheid is simply the south African version of the general concept of ethnocracy, it is the hyponym.Nishidani (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

And yet the article doesn't mention the proposal by the Swiss. Sir Joseph 14:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, cite it. It would only take several minutes of your time. I won't add anything because the page just keeps on getting excised, eviscerated. A reminder to editors of good will. When reverting out large amounts of material, even if the principle is correct, one should try to copy and paste the material removed on pages of articles were that material is unobjectionable. If editors spent more time looking at, and adding sources, rather than raising huge bulldust storms of piffling equivocation that devour serious editorial work, Misplaced Pages would become a serious encyclopedia. Nishidani (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's be clear on the issues. I think this BLPNB thread is about whether it is proper to use the term Sippenhaft to describe Trumps' Twitter musings. At the same time, the Sippenhaft article per se has been properly cleaned-up by removing non-Germanic history materials (Trumpian and non-Trumpian) so that the reader has an article exclusively devoted to the Germanic term. This being the case, we can close this thread with an admonition that the addition materials seeking to link Trump to the Sippenhaft article are subject to WP:GS. If this is the decision, we need only repeat that "as per ARBCOM decisions, materials in Trump-related articles will be evaluated in accordance with BLP, UNDUE, WP:5P, etc.". – S. Rich (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

They are not 'twitter musings'. They were delivered in interviews with the press, the first time to Fox news.Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I would say that's fairly close ... I think the thread, based on the initial post, is more about whether BLP is an impediment to including referenced, attributed content that the authors opinion is that Trump's stated position is akin to Sippenhaft. For mine, there would be BLP problems with stating this opinion as fact, and also with stating it as opinion without in-text attribution; and I believe that that is also the rough consensus of the discussion (noting I am involved in the discussion here). Concur that if the non-Germanic history materials have been removed, and there is no longer an intention to include content at Sippenhaft, then we should be done here. - Ryk72 09:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The text proposed, and opposed, on the talk page, had attribution, indicating quite clearly that this was an interpretation of what Trump said. We should try to make policy calls by remembering or checking precisely what was said, where, in what medium, and by whom. This is not about Trump. It is about the use of the word sippenhaft, and that Trump was mentioned by name, and the nervousness surrounding it, perhaps due to the usual POV pushing skirmishing, is immaterial.Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The text proposed, and opposed, on the talk page, had attribution, indicating quite clearly that this was an interpretation - Absolutely! That was my understanding throughout this discussion and also the basis of my opinion that it was not a BLP violation; and appears to be the basis of other similar opinions, above. I am simply reaffirming that basis, as it is not clear in the comment by S. Rich. - Ryk72 13:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Close this thread. It is not proper to use the term Sippenhaft to describe Trumps' Twitter musings, nor is it proper to add Trumps comments to the Sippenhaft page, not even if you attribute it to anyone, only if Trump himself used the term would it warrant inclusion in that article. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• I have no strong opinion about it, but generally agree with arguments by Nishidani. There is an active related discussion on the page , and I invite everyone interested in this subject to join discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Mike Renzi

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

I have been attempting to explain to an editor that material based on personal interviews and knowledge cannot be added to this article unless it is also supported by independent reliable sources. Now looking over the article it appears largely to be overly promotional and extremely poorly sourced. I would appreciate it enormously if other editors with an understanding of our policies regarding living persons could take a look and help bring it at least somewhat in line with WP:BLP/WP:RS requirements.--Jezebel's Ponyo 23:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Jezebel's Ponyo: RE my edits of Mike Renzi, I wrote the original article. I am not affiliated with Mike Renzi. I am a much-published author and journalist (jamesgavin.com) who has interviewed Mr. Renzi for books. I disagree that the article is at all promotional; it is straightforwardly factual and almost free of adjectives. In many cases this information is available nowhere else. Does that bar it from inclusion on Misplaced Pages? The edits were so minimal - a few career updates - that I can't believe they're causing all this drama. The subject of the entry can make edits but an outside party can't based on his information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrForager (talk • contribs) 23:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I will be definitely on a copy-edit mission.Winged Blades 08:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ponyo:,@MrForager:--- Done It seems MrForager was the sole contributor towards adding all these unsourced/ill-sourced facts about the subject to the article in a massive edit dating back to 2011.The edits that took place subsequently all appeared to be pruning and copy-editing the huge chunk of info added by him.Thus,I've reverted the article back to the edit before he added all those info.I would also like to state MrForager may not indulge in tendentious edit-warring, readding the deleted info based on flimsy references of personal interviews and may only re-incorporate selected contents, provided they are well supported by a WP:RS.Winged Blades 08:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs). I've done a bit of tidying as well. There is significant information that could be imported back in to the article if written neutrally and supported by reliable sources.--Jezebel's Ponyo 18:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Russell Brothers

Russell Brothers is a draft article I have written, still in my sandbox. I am posting here to ask advice about it. Below is a communication I sent to a more senior editor, Fuhghettaboutit, and the response I received: ----Eagledj (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm working on an article about a prominent Nashville businessman who turned into a major cocaine smuggler (as in Breaking Bad), Russell Brothers. It is a fascinating story but I have had second thoughts about it because the subject is still alive and due to be released from prison in December of 2016. Even though his name and exploits have been on the front pages of many newspapers in Tennessee and elsewhere, something about this gives me pause. He still has an opportunity to live some more years. I'm sure he will eventually be on Misplaced Pages, but I'm inclined to hold the article for a while, maybe even until his death — he is 78 now. He reportedly enjoys his bad boy image. Anyway, please take a look. Your thoughts ?

Regards as always, Eagledj (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Eagledj. As always, you're doing a bang up job in composing the article! By the sources you've uncovered and cited it appears his criminal convictions were rather notorious, with a fair amount of coverage in reliable, secondary, independent sources. These are convictions so there's no WP:BLPCRIME issue. So I guess the question is, is he sufficiently a public figure? Is this beyond just routine news coverage (I think it is). However, you are not just using newspapers but court cases as sources to verify facts about his criminal history, which seems to be in conflict with WP:BLPPRIMARY. What I think you should do is ask for some more eyes, of people who are very familiar with these issues, to give you their opinion, and the forum for that appears to be the Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. It's true that that page's statement of purpose indicates it's more for reporting potential BLP violations, but it seems the best place to find people highly experienced in this area to take a look, and I can't imagine anyone turning you away because you're not reporting an incident but seeking advice.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox person/Wikidata

There's a deletion discussion about Infobox person/Wikidata that could affect BLPs, in case anyone here is interested. SarahSV 17:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Mark Wright (footballer, born 1963)

Full disclosure- I am only recent to Misplaced Pages and have shared a beer with the subject as a Fan of LFC, but I did not write the article. The page ] has had the revisions to it reverted now twice, most recently citing MOS as the reason. It seems to me that the style of the attempted re-write is exactly similar to that of ], is much better referenced (20 original-70 new refs), and contains fewer POV statements than the article it is replacing. I don't want to run afoul of the community- any insight is appreciated. I've read the MOS and POV articles and can't find how the new article might run afoul of them.

References

Jump up ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mark_Wright_(footballer,_born_1963) Jump up ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/Michael_Owen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnccarleton (talk • contribs) 20:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I have addressed your comments on the article talk page. Sussexpeople (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Leonard Lance

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

There is a discussion at Talk:Leonard Lance as to whether particular text is supported by sources or an original interpretation of them. Editors are invited to discuss either here or there. - Ryk72 21:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Really don't see what the big deal is. Lance said publicly, quoted in the Star Ledger, that he's an enthusiastic supporter of Trump. So a partisan GOP-er has been systematically removing that phrase here and here. Come on; leave politics out of this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not what either the Star Ledger or the source they use, Observer (which has a fuller, and more qualified statement), quotes the article subject as saying; it's an original interpretation of the sources statements. As for the accusations: Please take your WP:ASPERSIONS elsewhere. - Ryk72 22:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Input accepted

I just walked into an article about Dr. Oz and there's some discussion about whether or not we should include the statement "Psuedoscience promoter" or not in the lead. You opinion is being sought to gain a consensus one way or another. My argument on keeping it out is very much a WP:BLP argument. ƘƟ SĦ 21:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Just noting that those who support the inclusion have their own concrete reasons too.Err...A bit fairer to both sides.Winged Blades 17:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Alexandra Savior and her real name

See Alexandra Savior. I reverted her publicists changes and restored her real name which is in several media profiles of her. Now I wonder. If I did the wrong thing you can undo and hide the name again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B11C:899D:156C:E53:AB15:BE48 (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

They were right about the bit in a book - it is irrelevant to them. I would say if Savior is how she is titled per commonname - then she should probably be referred to as 'Savior' in the article rather than her given surname - which would stay in the article where appropriate. I gather this is generally the case with entertainers with stage names. See Jon Bon Jovi for an example. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Tom Brady and deflategate

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

RfC about deflategate in the lede or not going on now. --Malerooster (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Jack Renshaw (far-right activist)

This entire article is hyperbolic beyond belief, and uses youtube, facebook, Huffington Post, and some left-wing activist group as primary sources, which seems to be heavily POV.

Also, Despite his attempt at gaining fame, I just don't think this bloke is notable enough to be included on wiki, and definitely not the way his bio was written.

Stevo D (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Stevo D: He has enough coverage in reliable sources that he might pass WP:GNG. If you want to push the deletion argument I think WP:AFD would be the best place to take it. If you do decide to take it there, be sure that your arguments are based on policy and guidelines. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Steve Topple

https://en.wikipedia.org/Steve_Topple

The subject is completely un-notable, merely being a blog-writer, and has a low media profile; Among other offenses in the article are unsourced statements, invective, usage of sources like Buzzfeed and twitter, the entire article seems to have been written by one user, and generally just not following good BLP practice.

Stevo D (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• PRODed. If contested it can be taken to WP:AfD. As an FYI in the future you can take it to AfD yourself or add the WP:PROD tag with your reasoning. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• The Portland Communications story is very important as it was not only limited to Topple and Canary-readers: Len McCluskey, the General Secretary of Britain's largest union cited this conspiracy, a derivative of Topple's work. HelgaStick (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

David Bradish

https://en.wikipedia.org/David_Bradish This page is a vanity living persons biography. The page is an orphan and pretty much all the material is unattributed, aside from links to the individuals personal website. Seems to be mostly POV. I don't think he has done anything that deserves a wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.236.248 (talk • contribs)

• Thanks for the report. I am in a degree of agreement - page seems to have a problem with WP:PRIMARY links, there are no Secondary or tertiary sources and the article is very large considering that concern (35,650 bytes) - 22 of the 23 http links in the article are to http://www.davidbradish.com the other one is to discogs. The article, more or less exactly as it stands today was written by a single user in his sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Agata_Mayer and moved it to article space from there. In thirteen months no wikipedia editor has checked its credentials to exist at all. Govindaharihari (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
• I'm about to PROD it. Concerns are valid, and I doubt the deletion will be contentious. If it is, it can be taken to AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The article creator left me a message contesting the PROD. I have since moved it to AfD. If anyone wants to continue the discussion, it would probably be best done there. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Jaime Rodríguez Calderón

Jaime Rodríguez Calderón Jaime Rodríguez Calderón (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Someone has added, in poorly-written English, a section on the supposedly unfair media treatment of Governor Rodríguez Calderón. I think the whole section bears deleting, but I'm not sure if that's the best course of action.

Section removed, and I've added it to my watchlist. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Pickering article

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

I just came across this article. It's worth looking at this article to see if this guy is even WP:Notable. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I see that there was a tiny AfD on him: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Daniel Pickering. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I've done a bit of work on the article. He might just scrape through as he is credited as exec producer on Gerry Anderson's final film as well as another film called Stalled. Feel free to disagree, though! — Iadmc♫ 15:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Paddy Roberts Politician

Paddy Roberts (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I do not wish to have a Misplaced Pages article.

It has been up for years, and it now being used by an individual (outing redacted) to libel me and another member of my family.

(They have) added a claim that I "stalk people online" and that I have a brother who was a drug smuggler.

If you edit it back, but leave it open, he will just do it again.

Please remove this article until such time as you have systems in place to stop it being used for defamatory purposes.

Thank you.

Paddy Robert (contact info redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.126.102.66 (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for bringing this here - we will take a look but please don't reveal other editors identities as that is not allowed, see WP:OUTING. It's also a bad idea to post your phone number here so I've redacted that as well - if you have an issue that needs involves sensitive information (such as your phone number) or requires more direct contact, see WP:OTRS. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I've boldly redirected the article to Progressive Nationalist Party of British Columbia as I don't think Mr. Roberts is independently notable. Will probably send it to AFD if reverted. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution