Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:36, 14 May 2016

• 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;" |

• 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?

George Campbell Jr.

Much of the material reported here under the heading "Cooper Union controversy and investigation by New York state Attorney General" is incorrect, as is much of the material in the Attorney General's report which merely regurgitates a lawsuit filed. The citations here are politically motivated or biased comments by an alumnus with a strong bias and which are potentially libelous. A section of this bio challenging the attorney general's report, published in the Chronicle of Higher Education has been edited out and should be re-added.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.33.13.1 (talk) 16:54, April 2, 2016‎

Michael Voris

This article is getting a lot of temporary attention due to the guy admitting that he used to be gay, despite his long held opposition to the homosexual agenda.

As you would expect it's been a bit of a magnet. I've cleaned it up (I think) but as most (probably all) of the unhelpful edits come from anonymous IP accounts, could we have a semi-protect for a couple of months? That should get rid of the worst of it, although I suspect there will continue to be drive by edits after a couple of months - mostly it will have died down.

JASpencer (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Could I bump this? I'm getting quite a lot of assertions from anonymous IPs, mostly probably libellow. JASpencer (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Article's been semi-protected for a while so the activity seems to have stopped. Protection will eventually expire though so please help watch the page. Also, article seems kinda bloated to me, could use some trimming in my opinion. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Anna Rezan

There is a "furious person" in particular that keeps reporting the article through various IP's.The person removes citations and references and then reports the articles as poorly citated.The person started a "discussion" about the article.And even though users have been improving the citations,citations are being removed and then the article is being reported again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelSteinman (talk • contribs) 02:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I just saw this but I believe one of these "furious" people MichaelSteinman was referring to was me, though I was not editing from an IP. An SPI was opened and MichaelSteinman has since been blocked indefinitely. That being said, Anna Rezan's page could use a second set of eyes because it is a mess. Meatsgains (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Nicholas Fisk

Needs banner removed, no longer a living person. His agent, Laura Cecil Agency, announced his death this afternoon. https://twitter.com/LCecilLitAgency/status/729985447397609472 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.62.111 (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The article was reverted by a user called Jkaharper because he felt that Nicholas Fisk's agent wasn't famous enough. I don't know what to do now, it isn't like a dead guy is going to be getting a better agent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.62.111 (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The edit was reverted because Twitter is not a reliable source. As was suggested in the edit summary, best to await a report from somewhere more reputable. Eagleash (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Does Sorcha Faal reports fall under BLP?

Sorcha Faal reports is a renamed article about articles, referred to as "reports", by an anonymous conspiracy theorist. The question rises because although there is obviously a real person or even persons writing these reports, they are anonymous. It appears that Anonymous (group) isn't a BLP article, and this might be considered similar. It's relevant to the content because there is a dispute whether this is a list article, in which case every report he ever made could be included, or rather we should only include reports with have had RS coverage, which is what we'd probably do in a BLP to avoid it becoming promotional. Doug Weller talk 13:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Anonymity is not really a huge issue in this case. Anonymous (group) is not a BLP because it is made up of a large number of people - it is a large group. BLP applies to individuals and (very) small groups. Sorcha Faal is a pseudonym of (by all reports) one person - so BLP applies even if we dont know their real name. 'Sorcha Faal' would therefore be a biography. If it is intended to be a list of Sorcha Faal reports, it could be renamed 'List of Sorcha Faal reports' but the BLP policy would still apply. If it was a list article (I dont deal in lists so please correct me) surely only RS reports would be included anyway? Since without a valid reference any entry can be removed from a list? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Only in death: I agree, and as I stated to @Natalie.Desautels: here: "Anonymity does NOT equate to non-existence." Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:Source list Implies that all the usual restrictions for list item inclusion would apply if embedded or stand alone. Now *normally* for creative works this might not be an issue as a primary source is generally reliable for say the author of a book. This may not be the case for Sorcha Faal given their non-standard crediting for their reports. It would probably end up as only RS covered items. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

From looking at the article now, it is currently a biography with an extended works section. It should be either Sorcha Faal (biography) with the notable reports referenced appropriately - which would remove a lot of extra material on the reports - or Sorcha Faal (biography) with all the in-depth report stuff split off into a proper bibliography/list. Or even just Sorcha Faal reports with all the biographic commentary removed. At the moment it appears people want it to be a biography with all the content of a non-biographic article. It lacks focus. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree entirely. BLP applies and the article is a bit of a mess. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with both @Only in death: and @Doug Weller: that BLP applies, but that "it lacks focus" and is "a bit of a mess." How to focus it and clean it up is the main question. Should it go back to its original Sorcha Faal? If so, what's the focus then? Should it stay as Sorcha Faal reports? If so, how to structure it? Can an authors works stand on their own without mentioning their author? Can an author be notable without noting their works? Any suggestions? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow, this article is a total mess. Seriously suspect sourcing and blatant misrepresentation of sources throughout. I agree that WP:BLP should apply here, which means that a large chunk of the sourcing (eg, comments by users in forums, snopes reports, etc) should not be used in the manner that the article currently uses them. I'm doing some cutting now but the page desperately needs more eyes/input. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I got sucked in and did a major revision - removed a large amount of material that I think violated a number of different guidelines (BLP vios, OR, non-NPOV stuff). Hopefully it sticks since as I said the article was in a truly atrocious state before. Please help keep an eye on the page. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• Note The removal of nearly 80% of this articles content by @Fyddlestix: without following the WP consensus process have been reverted and the discussion about this can be viewed here. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I stand by my edits - the portions of the article that I removed violated a number of different Misplaced Pages policies, including NPOV and BLP, and prior concensus is not required to remove that kind of crap. I won't revert for now but encourage others to weigh in here, for those who understand Misplaced Pages guidelines it should be obvious that Picomtn's version of the page is not acceptable, and that reliable sources don't support much more than what I cut the article down to. Fyddlestix (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Moxie Marlinspike

At Moxie Marlinspike we've got this in the infobox: "Other names: Matthew Rosenfeld, Mike Benham". The first source cited for Benham doesn't seem to support this at all. It doesn't even mention Marlinspike. The second source is an email message that gives Benham as the display name for Marlinspike's email address. It's not a WP:RS. At best it's a primary source combined with some WP:OR. There is discussion on the talk page, but it consists mostly of people asserting that Marlinspike must be outed, with no discussion of the BLP issue. I don't think it's appropriate to publish in a BLP what amounts to original research outing the subject of the article. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The alternate names have (quite rightly) been removed by Only in death, and a warning not to revert without better sources has been posted on the talk page. Looks like the article could probably use a few more people watching it though. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Seal

I am not sure where the source came from that said that Seal's Facial scars are from Discoid Lupus (A condition that affects skin only above the neck}, but that is simply erroneous. I am an Internal Medicine specialists and, as an expert who teaches rheumatology to resident physicians, I can tell you that Discoid Lupus can appear anywhere on the body and shows particular preference for areas exposed to sunlight. There is no place in medical literature that says Discoid Lupus appears only above the neck. Now I have no idea as to whether or not Seal's scars are from Lupus or not, but your supporting facts are wrong.

Edward S. Umlauf, D.O. Vice Chair, Internal Medicine Genesis HealthCare System Zanesville, Ohio — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbarfarkle (talk • contribs) 20:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

He's talking about this line at Seal (musician): "Although there have long been rumours as to the cause of the scars on Seal's face, they are the result of a type of lupus called discoid lupus erythematosus – a condition that specifically affects the skin above the neck." --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I removed that particular detail - the sources cited do not appear to verify it anyway. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Mee Moua

The single-purpose account created for no other purpose than to edit Mee Moua's biography in a manner which depicts her as negatively as possible has returned and made edits which introduce factual inaccuracies and unnecessary negative inferences. More eyes on this article would be appreciated. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Harry Handelsman

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

My name is Jessica Phillips, I work with Harry Handelsman and I believe this article should be expanded.

See references below:

• http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/17/harry-handelsman-manhattan-loft-corporation_n_6334552.html
• http://www.standard.co.uk/news/the1000/the-progress-1000-londons-most-influential-people-2015-property-a2943576.html
• http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/station-master-harry-handelsman-6759440.html
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/property-and-architecture/manhattan-loft-corporation-founder-harry-handelsman-on-why-east/
• http://www.building.co.uk/harry-handelsman-the-pearly-king/5055207.article
• http://www.propertyweek.com/in-depth/market-features/lofty-ambitions-for-stratford-resi-tower/5075990.article — Preceding unsigned comment added by JessicaSPhillips (talk • contribs) 12:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@JessicaSPhillips: I suggest drafting and proposing the specific improvements you'd like to see on the article's talk page, then filing an requests edit request to get them implemented. Our page on editing with a conflict of interest also has a lot of helpful guidance for these situations. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Jeff Probst

In the personal section, it says Probst dated a bunch of guys. That's not true, or at least not verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.194.169.105 (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Fixed the names - article has clearly had someone add false information at some point though so it needs a thorough going-over. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Charlie Hunnam

There's some question about what policy is regarding the inclusion of romantic relationships that are arguably insignificant (i.e. not married, etc). I wasn't able to find any clear guidance regarding the appropriateness of such material myself. The discussion can be found here. Thank you for your attention to this matter. DonIago (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

We'll, the IP insisting that "girlfriends are not listed here" (and edit warring over it) is obviously incorrect as there is no such policy. The relevant question is whether the relationship has enough coverage in RS to be verified and worthy of inclusion. This particular relationship does appear to meet that threshold, although I'd suggest citing it to the many magazine articles about the couple that are out there rather than the Daily Mail Fyddlestix (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment here and at the Talk page in question. DonIago (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Arseniy Yatsenyuk

• Arseniy Yatsenyuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A new editor has been making significant changes to this article. I've reverted twice and left explanations on their Talk page, which, to their credit, they have responded. Their latest change looks like an improvement over their earlier changes, but I'm still concerned with the significant contradictions of previously sourced material. I'm hampered by the foreign sources, both from a reliability standpoint and from a subsantive standpoint. Hopefully, someone here can assist. I don't intend to revert anymore.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Purported birth name of a porn actor

I deleted the purported birth name of a porn actor because it was not properly sourced. It's been re-added, using youtube as a source. In my judgment, this is woefully short of what would be necessary. I don't want to edit war and the re-inserting editor and I have gone back and forth with similar edits on this a couple of times since early March. I think I'd be justified re-deleting it again under WP:BLPNAME, but I have no corner on the wisdom market. Would others please check this out and, if appropriate, revert the re-insertion? David in DC (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Annamari Dancs

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

ISN'T "ROMAN", but MAGYAR (hungarian citizen, too), and after 2010 she live and work in the hungarian Capital City's Operetta Theater in musicals and classic operettes. The ENGLISH article is vlach/roman(? (what's ROMAN?) editing is...

NEED modify the article of an alive young actress, - because of the english article is romanian editing, and the NATIONALIST romans the szekler magyar (hungarian citizen) singer girl life - story isn't the whole truth, especially not for a career in the riser is fixed stations! Due Mari Anna Dancs ethnicity!

  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyarmati Pál (talk • contribs) 19:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC) 

It says "romanian" not "roman." But I'm not sure that's reliably sourced, and that goes for much of the article - the only source for the entire article appears to be her own webpage. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Yisrael Katz (politician born 1955)

RfC on possible WP:NOTCENSORED violations. Please see Talk:Yisrael_Katz_(politician_born_1955)#RfC:_Does_the_article_general_content_need_to_be_expanded_to_justify_critical_content.3F. Tanbircdq (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution