Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 02:22, 18 July 2016 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive241) (bot). 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.

|- ! 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?

Kelli Ward (Politician)

I have been updating the content on this page and other pages relevant to the upcoming election in Arizona on both August 30th and November 8th and over the past several weeks another individual has been repeatedly deleting the information I have been adding. Presumably this is because they work for Ward and do not like to see any unfavorable content. However it is factual, cited and I believe relevant to anyone who would use Misplaced Pages to learn more about a politician before voting for them. I have worked repeatedly to mediate the issue in the page's Talk board. To prevent any further edit waring, I was hoping to find some advice from the community. It is getting to the point where it is less of a hassle and more of just vandalism in an attempt to save face. I don't know what to do at this point. Tsudeck (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

J Roberto Trujillo

This appears to be a copy of this person's CV written by himself, and is not verifiable or written from a neutral point of view. A clear WP:COI. http://www.robertotrujillo.ceo/about/

J Roberto Trujillo

James Watson

Seems to be an attempt to hide discredited racist comments made by a scientist which directly led to his resignation. Diff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

We are writing an encyclopedia here, not student protest placards. Watson's comments in 2007 were hugely controversial , but the previous wording was better.--♦IanMacM♦ 17:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly this is a living encyclopedia made more accurate by sourced material and facts. I am confused with the above reference to student protest placards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The wording should be as accurate and neutral as possible. At no point did Watson say that skin colour was linked to IQ.--♦IanMacM♦ 04:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The comments are unambiguously racist, and this description is brought up by numerous RS (e.g., , ). Prior arguments to the contrary on the talk page have rested on the blog post of Jason Malloy, identified in a New York Times article as: "Jason Malloy, 28, an artist in Madison, Wis., who wrote a defense of Dr. Watson for the widely read science blog Gene Expression." Malloy is neither an expert on the psychology of intelligence, nor on what constitutes a racist remark, but he is an avid amateur researcher in the fringe viewpoint of "human biodiversity," and runs a blog called humanvarieties.org.

Since the remarks have become something of a turning point in Watson's life, precipitating his retirement, damaging his speaking career, and invoked by him to explain his later move to sell his Nobel Prize medal, it seems due to describe them in the lead.--Carwil (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Why not just describe the fact that many sources called it racist? Attribute the "racist" part to the sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

When there are conflicting viewpoints, we attribute the opinions. But here the speaker himself acknowledged the implications of the remarks and apologized: "I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways that they have. To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."

It's perfectly true that we can cite Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Mayor Ken Livingstone, the Science Museum and others as condemning the remarks, and Henry Louis Gates, the Guardian, the Atlantic, and Slate as describing them as racist. Or even say they were "widely described as racist," and honestly it's an improvement over "controversial," but it seems wordy and unnecessary evasive, IMHO. Racism is a political position, among other things, and it's completely possible for a statement to be objective racist, just as a remark can be pro-abolition or anti-clerical.--Carwil (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Opinions about these two edits to Louise Mensch would be appreciated

--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Content is WP:UNDUE so I agree with your edit. Meatsgains (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The content related to her selection as a candidate probably needs to stay (likewise the comments when she retired) the main issue at the time was that she was selected over local constituency objections, then when she quit early, they claimed it justified their position. She was (unfortunately for her) the most visible/high profile of the candidates involved in the selection arguments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Meatsgains and Only in death, I don't know this woman. I saw a tweet from her that made me curious. She comes across in our article as a callous, foolish, hypocritical, vain, mentally-unstable, drug-abusing opportunist. Perhaps she is, but we haven't really made that case, in the article. Presently it seems to be just a collection of any shit people have said about her. It really reads like a cherry-picked, undue hatchet-job. But perhaps I'm missing some context, knowing nothing about her but what I've read in our article. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

not sylvia miles in photo on her page

• Sylvia Miles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The photograph on the page for Sylvia Miles is for Vera Miles, not Sylvia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.6.19 (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The source of the photo, the Florida Keys Public Library, identifies her as Sylvia. What's your source that it isn't? —C.Fred (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The photograph in question is apparently File:Sylvia Miles on Duval Street.jpg. But what makes you sure that this is Vera and not Sylvia Miles? The image was published by Monroe County Public Library (Florida Keys) which is supposedly a reliable source. De728631 (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Despite their shared surname, and being born within a few years of each other, Vera Miles and Sylvia Miles are not related, as far as I can tell. Sylvia Miles is credited with a role in 92 in the Shade, the film shot in Key West when the photo was taken there. I see no evidence that Vera Miles was involved with that film. Therefore, I believe that the photo is of Sylvia. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure looks like Sylvia Miles to me and nothing like Vera Miles. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Herman Cornejo

User:MajoLavandera, a good-faith newbie and friend of Argentine-American ballet dancer Herman Cornejo, has indicated that Cornejo would prefer his article not to discuss his marriage, to a fellow dancer and sister of the director of a company Cornejo worked with as a result of the marriage. User:Oshwah reverted, saying that that's insufficient reason to remove the material. Lavandera redeleted it, and I restored a tweaked version.

I'm not used to interpreting and applying WP:NPF. Cornejo has given many interviews to the media, including some discussing his wife, including one mentioning their separation; their marriage was noted in very reliable sources including the NYT (as well as the NY Post, more in-depth but less professional), and its end referenced in a La Nación article about the wife and her brother. The material is somewhat relevant to his career, and is currently neutral and tactful IMO.

What's the verdict? Does the presumption in favor of privacy hold, or does his status as an international performer and interview-giver make it fair game to report politely on something he'd rather we didn't? FourViolas (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

References

1. Pointe Magazine
2. DanceTabs
3. NYT
4. NY Post
5. La Nación

In my view, a comprehensive biography will include neutral, well-referenced information about the person's marriages and divorces. When a notable person discusses their spouse in detail with the media, then they abandon a realistic claim of privacy if the marriage ends. Of course, the article should not give undue weight to all the details of how the marriage ended. In this specific case, his career was intertwined with that of his spouse and brother-in-law, and that is an additional reason to discuss it. Also, we have no way of verifying that the anonymous editor MajoLavandera is accurately conveying Cornejo's wishes. I say keep it in. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Carl Yankowski

The article says, "Today he has a problem laying off the sweets"

and

"Yankowski is a pathological liar..."

Seems that all info should be double-checked, including the reference to Wellesley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam6135 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Sam6135. I removed the obvious vandalism. You could have done it yourself. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Zakir Naik

• Zakir Naik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been a magnet for problems for a long time. However, lately it's gotten worse. I'm having trouble with dealing with it and may just bow out entirely. Perhaps others could take a look.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a heads up. After I posted this I found out that 1RR has been applied to the article per discretionary sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion - Edward Group (2nd nomination)

Was previously deleted for not being notable, and then the single-purpose that created the article revived it with the same problems. An extensive search did not turn up enough to pass WP:BIO. Delta13C (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Edgar Schoen

• Edgar Schoen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a biography on a former chairperson of the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. User:Cirflow, fresh off a block for edit warring on the Circumcision article, is making some (in my view) highly POV edits, including some loaded language and some synthesis to make it appear that Schoen only supports Circumcision because he is Jewish. More eyes on this would be appreciated. - MrOllie (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I fixed the POV! All you are accomplishing now is putting salt in my wound and causing more problems by putting an already settled conflict up for debate, and just so you know I made the original admittedly POV edit PRIOR to their block, and since you reverted my edit DURING the block I obviously was going to come back to fix it!Cirflow (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

If the above statement isn't enough to consider a topic ban, I am at a loss for what would be. John from Idegon (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the cause, that article is a BLP mess. I just excised a batch of sources that didn't mention him that were being used in order to criticize his stance on circumcision, but there is more to be done. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump

This edit restored content which is no longer accurate (and replaced content which is accurate) to the lede of the article. The body of the article currently states (with reliable sourcing):

Trump later modified his position by stating that the temporary ban would apply to people originating from countries with a proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies. Trump has said that the ban would be lifted once the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists.

Also, per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, the content should NOT have been restored unless/until there was consensus to do so in Talk.CFredkin (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

References

1. Detrow, Scott. Trump Calls To Ban Immigration From Countries With 'Proven History Of Terrorism', NPR (June 13, 2016): "I will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there’s a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies until we fully understand how to end these threats."
2. Ryan Teague Beckwith (2016-06-13). "Read Donald Trump's Speech on the Orlando Shooting". Time.com. Retrieved 2016-07-12.

Amy Poehler

Nearly two years ago, it was widely reported that actress Amy Poehler broke up with her actor boyfriend Nick Kroll. Apparently, Us Weekly first reported on it, then People Magazine followed up with what they had from the Us Weekly article(s). Entertainment Tonight followed suit as did the Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy It should be noted that I don't care about Poehler's personal life or about who she's dating. What I care about is that the article on her be accurate. Which, at this time, it is not. As well, I've always been a stickler for following BLP guidelines and accuracy in all articles. In the past, when a celebrity relationship, death, or "breaking news" story has come to light, editors are rightly skeptical and cautious in adding such content into BLP articles - I'm among them. In this case, when the story of Poehler's relationship split first broke, I was one of those who remained cautious. A year later, when there was nothing that refuted the reporting on the break up, I was less cautious and felt the new information on her relationship status should be put into the article. Now, almost two years later, the content remains out of the article, the article states she and her now ex-boyfriend are still dating, and the result is a BLP that contains inaccurate information. Others beside myself have tried to rectify this situation, always adding reliable sources to support the content addition (LA Times and SJ Merc News among them). We have been met continually with "NOTATABLOID" and "not a reliable source" and almost immediate reversions. Today and the last couple of days is the most recent occurrence of this. Discussion at the talk page in the past - and, it would appear today - has resulted in brick walls being built. I think it's time to solve this issue once and for all in regard to the sources cited for this BLP article. Any help and direction on this from uninvolved and neutral editors would be appreciated.-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This has been a perennial problem in biographies of TV, film and music stars, and normally most editors will follow WP:BLP and WP:NOTTABLOID. But a couple of editors have made or are trying to make edits at Amy Poehler based on anonymous, unattributed, shadowy "sources" making unconfirmed claims.

Their claim, for example, that her purported breakup with Nick Kroll has been "widely reported" is specious, since virtually every single report is secondary reporting citing Us Weekly and its anonymous "source." That's all the Los Angeles Times and San Jose Mercury News did. A hundred sources could repeat the claim, but it all goes back to the same "source": some anonymous person of uncertain credibility or agenda who gave Us Weekly an unconfirmed claim — which by definition is a rumor. An encyclopedia does not traffic in gossip and rumor.

RE: "a year later, when there was nothing that refuted the reporting on the break up..." Some shadowy person's allegation isn't magically confirmed after a year or even 10 years. And if celebrities had to refute every anonymous claim made about them in celebrity magazines and the tabloid press, they'd have little time for anything else. Many, many celebrities never bother to refute media gossip.

RE: "the article states she and her now ex-boyfriend are still dating...." That is absolutely false. The article says they began dating at some point, with RS citing, and that she mentions Kroll in her book. That's all we confirmably know. Nowhere does the article say, "As of 2016 they remain in a relationship."

The other editor said on the article's talk page that he or she: "tried to use language in the article which reflects that the split was reported rather than saying the split was confirmed by the couple." One of the biggest weasel words we avoid is "reportedly." Anyone can report anything. And simply adding the word "reportedly" to gossip or a rumor doesn't make it OK or encyclopedic.

Finally, there's a larger issue at stake: Stating unconfirmed, unverified, anonymously sourced claims as encyclopedic fact. Sometimes those claims will be correct. Sometimes they will not. There's no objective basis for saying, "This anonymous source is OK, but that one isn't." Where do we draw the line? That's the critical question. I do not believe that an encyclopedia, which as much as humanly possible is supposed the concrete, definitive word on a subject, should be using unconfirmed, tabloidy, who's-dating-who / who's pregnant-type information based on anonymous claims. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Reportedly, most Misplaced Pages editors who use a lot of weasel words are actual, literal weasels... --Guy Macon (talk) 23:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Our guideline WP:RS says "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Several of the news outlets cited on the breakup have excellent reputations. The LA Times in particular cites "multiple reports" and attempted to contact both parties. WP:RS does not require that we vet the fact checking that our sources actually carry out in each case. Doing so might be appropriate as an extra measure for a highly damaging report about a living person, but the end of a dating relationship does not seem that contentious. I think the sourcing passes muster in this situation.--agr (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Get To Know The Candidates!

As America heads into the election season, lots of blp stubs are popping up for candidates. Many times, the only sources are the blurbs in the papers stating the candidates position on various issues, which may be in a flat list, or in a Q&A type format. To what extent do these type of pieces count towards establishing notability? I'm thinking specifically of this narrow type of media coverage, understanding that the normal coverage requirements are in force for all other sources. Crow 00:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution