Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elduderino (talk | contribs) at 21:42, 28 September 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

Additional notes:

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

• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Vani Hari (Food Babe)

I came across the article on Vani Hari and found it to be extremely slanted toward smearing her, in my assessment. I've been following the controversy about her, voices in favor and against her, and critiques of her work as well as people who praise her work. I made an effort to edit the page to change some of the most glaring bias, and was promptly reverted and shut down by a small group of people who in my reckoning have occupied the article in an effort to make it into a soapbox for her critics, which is not what Misplaced Pages should be. I would appreciate some attention by uninvolved people, and hearing your comments on this. You may notice the recent edit history contains several edits by myself, and reverts by other editors, and plenty of dialogue in the talk page. Thank you for any time and attention you bring to this. SageRad (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor who was brought to said page by an earlier RfC by SageRad, I would say I did not find the same bias that's being claimed. Further, I read through ensuing talk page discussions (since you posted the RfC) and disagree that you are being stopped by a small group of people "in an effort to make it into a soapbox for her critics." As I see it, I would say you are likely too invested in this article and keep trying to post unsourced claims against consensus. I might recommend you take a step back from this article and just be willing to let this one go dude... Sorry to be so blunt, but I don't have a dog in this fight and someone should give you a frank analysis of the situation. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 18:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I posted a sourced claim, and it was reverted. I'm not "invested" in the article, but rather i'm invested in Misplaced Pages having space for editors with differing perspectives. I don't have a window into other people's minds to know their motivations, but the circumstantial evidence seems pretty clear to me. You don't know my motivation, either. Thank you for your opinion, but i'd still like to hear others and i maintain my position that the article is occupied by a group who have essentially locked it into a single direction. Thank you also for your input into the RfC. Wish there were more people who would follow the bot and offer their view. SageRad (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

In its previous state the article seemed a bit unbalanced in opposition of Hari, to the point where it made scientifically inaccurate claims that contradicted the sources to add to the ammo against her. The article also distorted a source to claim that Hari thought baking soda was a dangerous chemical!!!!!!! (thereby portraying her as stark raving mad) when the source clearly said no such thing. This article had some seriously skeezy BLP problems. I've made quite a few changes to the article but one, removing a laundry list of bullet pointed accusations against Hari based on a single source was reverted based on a "consensus" which seems incredibly dubious (both in terms of numbers supporting inclusion and the strength of their arguments). What do the wise folk of BLPN, think of the validity of including such a laundry list? Brustopher (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I have returned that bullet list to the article, in a different way, hopefully to satisfy your objection to the over use of one source. The illustrations of her strange approach to facts is a vital part of her BLP. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 10:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I am thankful to Brustopher for the careful and thoughtful work. The article does indeed look much improved to me. SageRad (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

... and yet no thanks to me for improving further? Why not? -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 12:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Your edit uses the word "sell" whereas the source uses the phrase "she recommends—and earns an Amazon.com affiliate commission from". Your claim in the article is that "Hari claims that aluminium in deodorants leads to breast cancer" whereas the source reads "Hari links aluminum in modern deodorants to horrific diseases such as breast cancer and Alzheimer’s" and when i go to Hari's own writing on which this is based, i find she actually wrote this: "I researched the ingredient Aluminum, and found out it is linked to all sorts of diseases, including 2 that I sadly personally have witnessed in close friends and family members – Breast Cancer and Alzheimer’s Disease. The link of aluminum to these diseases is hotly debated, some studies find a low risk factor (probably those funded by the chemical companies) and some find horrible results, like those studies that find aluminum accumulating in breast tissue or breaking the blood brain barrier leading to Alzheimer’s." So, there seems to be two levels of some distortion going on -- from Hari to the source, and then from the source to the Misplaced Pages article. Each distortion leans toward making Hari look bad. And the issue of weight. That's why i have some issues with your edits, Roxy. Hari does appear to have made a mistake there, and does recommend a deodorant that does contain alum, which does contain aluminum. That is certainly a mistake. But it seems that the use of this is mean spirited. SageRad (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Along a similar note, i made this edit as it appears to be a claim on a secondary source level (review statement) regarding human health, which would require MEDRS sourcing standard, and this source is definitely not up to par in that regard. Also, the claim is flawed anyway. It's based on this sentence in the source, which is an op-ed style essay: "It’s important to stress that experts in science and medicine have time and again debunked Hari’s claims that the ingredients discussed in this piece are as dangerous as she claims." Well, as i stated about Hari's clim regarding aluminum and disease, the source distorted that claim's magnitude as i have shown in the previous comment, and her claim does hold some truth. Aluminum has some link to breast cancer, and to Alzheimer's. Neither is definitive, but Hari does not claim that. This is emblematic of the nature of the bias that i see in the article, especially as it stood a couple days ago before some corrective edits were made. SageRad (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't find the article "extremely slanted toward smearing her", however there may be too much detail and quote mining in the criticism section, and probably some WP:NPOV concerns. The sentence "d'Entremont received death threats for her criticism of Hari following her article." and the phrase "... and in a 2011 Twitter post stated that flu vaccines have been used as a "genocide tool" in the past" are poorly sourced and should be removed. and are primary sources. They should not be used for the contentious claim "The statement became widely controversial... with public organisations promoting science, such as McGill University's Office for Science & Society and the American Council on Science and Health.". The last paragraph in Marketing strategy depends on one source and seems WP:UNDUE. The source is also somewhat biased.- MrX 14:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

A few days ago, the article was substantially different. Much progress has been made at restoring some balance, thankfully. SageRad (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• This is the sort of biased crap that this article has to put up with: SageRad hiding behind MEDRS to strip content they don't like. Our cliche "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources" does not mean that we demand the "extraordinary" level sourcing to support basic claims of common sense, just because they are uncomplimentary to Hari. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You mean you have to "put up with" another editor who insists on good sourcing as per Misplaced Pages guidelines, and who also doesn't like to see Misplaced Pages used as a soapbox for people to slander their enemies in a BLP? I'm sorry for your troubles. SageRad (talk) 15:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

No, you are not "insisting on sourcing per WP guidelines" you are making highly POV and ridiculous edits, then hiding behind an irrelevant policy in a feeble attempt to justify this. Your edits overall speak for your huge bias in this article, and in your other edits.

Vani Hari operates by making stupid statements and untruths, hoping that her fans don't notice them (Aluminium in anti-perspirants is bad. My anti-perspirants contain alum. Alum is not aluminium.) Very simple sources suffice to support this debunking. Yet you are demanding sources to the same standard for simple statments like "Water is wet" as we would (reasonably) for the truly extraordinary claims like, "Nazi microwaves make water toxic." You leave Hari's outlandish claims unchallenged, but you strip the simple stuff. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see my comment above on this edit. The claim in the article was a biomedical claim that "Hari's claims that these chemicals are dangerous have been strongly refuted by experts in science and medicine" which is a blanket statement that is not well-bounded, for one thing (which claims of Hari's), is based on a simple assertion in the source for the claim, and is definitely a biomedial claim about human health, which does require MEDRS. I'm not being technical or semantic here to push a point of view. I am removing POV pushing that was already present in the form of a bad claim, which essentially claimed that any link between aluminum and breast cancer or Alzheimer's is "strongly refuted by experts in science and medicine" as well as any claims as to potential effects of potassium sorbate, and any other claims that Hari has made that might be mentioned in the source document. It's a false blanket statement being attributed strongly to "experts in science and medicine" and present in a Misplaced Pages article. That was not a good situation. Furthermore, i have shown in detail how the source distorted Hari's original claims, and how Roxy's edit had distorted the source's version. The devil's in the details. I am paying attention to details. SageRad (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

There will never be a systematic review of Vani Hari's claims to satisfy MEDRS because no one will write it. Per WP:PARITY, we can use reliable but less-than-unassailable sources to counter fringe claims such as Hari's. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

What makes her claims fringe? For example, her claim that science suggests that there is a link between aluminum exposure and Alzheimer's? What makes it fringe? SageRad (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

David Zancai

Noted street performer in Toronto with history of mental illness. According to various social media posts, last night he had an incident on public transit, and numerous people have been adding unsourced undue content to his entry today alleging harassment and/or assault. While I don't doubt such a thing may have occurred, more eyes needed on this article. Some of the edits coming from registered users, so a simple IP block won't cut it. Echoedmyron (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Still happening: Echoedmyron (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

David Cornsilk

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

Some negative content was added here, partly cited to a newspaper report about a legal complaint filed with the Cherokee Nation, partly apparently unsourced. Some of this negative content was deleted yesterday, and then quickly restored. I'm not sure if the subject of this article is notable, but assuming that he is per the 2007 discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David Cornsilk, I have doubts about whether this material is appropriate, and I might be inclined to go back to an earlier version. Scrutiny from additional editors would be helpful. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Nino Surguladze

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

This article needs eyes. Either the subject or someone close to her is editwarring the article under a variety of IPs. The addition of the Facebook page is permissible if that is her sole official web page. The removal of her year of birth is also acceptable but quite silly since her full date of birth is published by the BBC and elsewhere. What is not acceptable is adding sentences like this:

Foundation invited a lot of international stars to partisipate in the benefit Concerts and more than 15 children's health and precious lifes where saved.

Rather than removing it (as I and and another editor had previously done) I copyedited it for grammatical English minus the "precious" and fact tagged it. It was immediately reverted. The IPs are also pasting in lengthy, unformatted, and completely unreferenced laundry lists of all the people she has allegedly worked with. Voceditenore (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

PS If this problem is more appropriate for Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, let me know and I'll move it there. Voceditenore (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced connecting of Living Persons to Center for Security Policy

Zeke1999, a possible COI editor, has been repeatedly inserting information claiming a large number of famous persons have accepted awards from the Center for Security Policy, an extremely controversial conspiracy theorist group, sourced only to the group's own website. This is part of a pattern of aggressive massaging he has done to this article. As connecting these living persons to a conspiracy theorist organization without RS confirmation is potentially defamatory, I have attempted to remove it, however the COI editor continues to revert. (Note, Zeke1999, as of yesterday, had made more than 80% of his 32 lifetime mainspace edits over 7 years on WP to the CSP article, or those of two bios of CSP staff members, which has included removal of critical material sourced to the Washington Post , the majority of his edits were done on these lightly trafficked articles within 24 hours of an IP editor making substantially identical edits, has repeatedly crossed several WP:PROMOTIONAL bright lines, such as inserting in-text links to te CSP website in violation of WP:EXT. .) There is currently a sockpuppet investigation of him active. LavaBaron (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a serious issue. Please see my TALK comments of Sept 27 on the Center for Security Policy page.

I understand biographies of living persons need to be written conservatively and with good sourcing. Here's the story on this piece.

Lavabaron made extensive changes to the Center for Security Policy page in July. Some were good edits that removed promotional material. Others made this item read like a hit piece. I edited this article this month to add balance and new sourced material. I also made a few corrections. I left Lavabaron's criticisms even though I disagreed with them.

Except for a few names I added to update the list of names, the list of individuals Lavabaron is complaining about here were kept in his or her July edits. When this editor finished his or her edits in July, he or she retained this list of individuals who received CSP awards. This person therefore is complaining about his or her own edits.

But let me put this dispute in perspective. Lavabaron apparently was on vacation until Sept 25. When he or she returned, the editor did mass reverts of the CSP and Frank Gaffney articles because he or she said there were too many changes to reverse individually. This mass revert removed edits by several editors, corrections and new material. Another editor and I reversed Lavabaron's mass edits.

Lavabaron criticized my edits as "sanitizing" and accused me of using an SPA account. He also lodged a sock puppet complaint (which was rejected) and complained about my edits on a Wikpedia fringe page. Next, he added a COI notation to the Gaffney and CSP pages. Now is lodging an unwarranted BLP complaint here. What will he or she do next?

I am inexperienced with editing Misplaced Pages. These attacks by Lavabaron have to stop.Zeke1999 (talk) 03:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay: the issue is you can't keep inserting a list of "award winners" without RS to back it up. It doesn't matter if it was there in the past or not; Misplaced Pages is edited by volunteers, not some mysterious force. Connecting living people to a group that has been denounced by dozens of media outlets, civil society groups, and universities as a hate group and conspiracy theorist is potentially highly defamatory. If you want to reinsert them that's fine, but you need a secondary RS for each name. We wouldn't let you insert into the Ku Klux Klan article that a famous star once won the Golden Klansman Trophy without a RS. Same thing here. LavaBaron (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: An IP editor did not make "substantially identical edits" - in fact, other than undoing an RBK (which I felt was unwarranted) by LavaBaron, I had made three minor edits to the article. The tool to detect user interaction can be useful, but does not show anything other than coincidence in this case. 99.170.117.163 (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have asked for a 3rd opinion.Zeke1999 (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Paul Mc Kevitt

• Paul Mc Kevitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Saw this at COIN. The whole article is a violation. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 06:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

In what way? Its ridiculously puffy and uncited, but I cant see any obvious BLP violation. (Which is understandable if it was written by/someone close to the subject) Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Dwayne Tryumf

A WP:SPA, who has focused primarily on the subject, Dwayne Tryumf, has created a draft on the subject and has been removing sourced biographic content due to privacy concerns. Based on editor's edit comment on 2015-09-28 13:07 (UTC), links to the artist's personal information are currently in the process of being removed from their respective websites, the editor has a relationship with the subject and may be in WP:COI. However, it seems that subject wants birth information removed. Recognizing that information is cached now, should we be removing the information? Please ping me since I don't watch this page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Dana Ewell

Strange one here, but could someone else take a look at Dana Ewell please? This was a bit of a BLP minefield, but I've hopefully sorted the worst of it. If anyone wants any more information, please email me about this. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Andy Liu

Please see Talk:Andy Liu for a discussion of whether a criminal arrest reported in major newspapers should be included in the article for Andy Liu, a mathematician whose article recently survived AfD based on claims of notability unrelated to the arrest. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Weasel Zippers source and others, at page with controversial claims about 14-year-old-boy

• Ahmed Mohamed clock incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Weasel Zippers" is being used as a source to add WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims about a 14-year-old boy.

Example of problematic editing: DIFF and DIFF.

Source that fails WP:RS = link.

Lots of other sources there at same page seem to fail WP:RS.

Could use extra eyes on the page and activity.

Page could stand to have extra scrutiny with all sources used being subject to removal if they fail WP:RS -- especially when making controversial claims.

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

— Cirt (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see also, blatant BLP violation by Elduderino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Cwobeel (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

What blatant violation would that be? I changed the lead from a clearly biased tone designed to elicit sympathy to a neutral objective reporting of known facts. Mike (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

What you did was remove the description of what happened and replaced it with one that didn't explain what happened. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

It explained in a far clearer and more neutral tone what happened. The existing phrasing was biased and emotional.Mike (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution