Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.
  • This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.
  • Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here.
  • You can request a revision deletion on IRC using #wikipedia-en-revdel connect, where only administrators will be able to see your concerns.
  • Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.
Sections older than 5 days archived by ClueBot III.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Requesting advice on Will Hayden[edit]

Will Hayden (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Up until the last couple days, Will Hayden was solely notable as a cable reality TV personality on one show, Sons of Guns. Today, TMZ ran an article about an arrest (which has since been added to the article, though with slightly better sourcing), which I believe brings this article within the ambit of WP:BLPCRIME. I had redirected it today, and was reverted by the article creator (who left a note on my user talk). I'm reasonably certain that an AfD would have resulted in redirect prior to the arrest, and I don't think the arrest should change that per BLPCRIME. But since I'd rather not edit war over the redirect, and there's every chance I'm wrong, I'd appreciate some outside input from those more familiar with BLP than me. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME relates to people who have articles written about them specifically because of the crime they are suspected of. In other words, the suspected crime is why they're notable. Will Hayden was notable for being the star of Sons of Guns - a national prime time cable TV show. Him having an article is no different than all the people who were on Jersey Shore, Pawn Stars, American Pickers, etc. who have had articles written about them. They all fit WP:BLP standards. It would have been different if Hayden was just some guy off the street who got arrested, and somebody wrote an article about him - then you'd have a case about non-notability. But Hayden had already been established as a TV personality long before he got arrested, and the article had long been written before news of the arrest came out. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
If anyone is "reasonably certain that an AfD would have resulted in redirect prior to the arrest," then it could go to AFD, but stars of TV shows have often been found to be notable in AFD, since they often have multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage. It is not the general practice at Wikipedia to eliminate an existing article just because the subject is charged with a crime, as might be the practice in the UK under their "sub judice" practice. It would be a good idea to monitor both his article and the show article for vandalism and BLP violations. Both articles could be semi-protected if problems arise. A foreseeable problem is how specifically the alleged 11 year old victim can be identified in either article. Edison (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
It's long been my understanding that going to AfD intending for the outcome to be a redirect is considered inappropriate. If that's changed in recent years, I'd be interested to know. But I'll be the first to admit I could be incorrect about this. In the meantime, I think this article needs more eyes: some of the details of the alleged crime as reported by TMZ and the NY Post have been added to the article, including the probable identity of the alleged victim. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
It's called a 'Blank and redirect', and per WP:BLAR, it should be submitted to afd is editors cannot find consensus on whether it's safe to do so. Though I also think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of notability. It's not temporary, as long as the person meets the WP:GNG, an arrest or conviction doesn't simply make them 'non-notable' anymore. Tutelary (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
You seem to misapprehend: I don't believe this individual has notability that is independent of the TV show. Notability is not inherited. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I was meaning that if this person was notable in the past, notability doesn't 'dissipate' so to speak, so if you're admitting that they were notable, you're admitting that they -are- notable. Tutelary (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Nobody knew who (or what) a Snooki was before Jersey Shore, but does that mean she's not notable? Rick Harrison was just some local pawn shop owner in Las Vegas prior to finding fame on Pawn Stars, but does that mean he's not notable? Will Hayden was just a gunsmith/gun shop owner in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, but one hit TV show later (Sons of Guns), he became famous. If he was still just a local gunsmith, the horrible crimes he's accused of doing wouldn't have made the news it has. But because he's a star of a prime time TV show, it's all over the place. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I still wasn't sure what a Snooki was till South Park explained it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:07, September 9, 2014 (UTC)
I see someone has changed four source article titles to "Hayden Arrested". This sort of lying goes beyond what Wikipedia should do for a living person. Goes to the other extreme of non-neutrality. I've fixed them, and hope they'll stay as they were actually written. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, August 28, 2014 (UTC)

Will Hayden victim[edit]

Will Hayden was arrested on child rape charges. Victim is still a minor. Most respectable journalism articles don't identify child rape victims or use identifying information. Identifying information is not necessary for the charge nor is necessary for the BLP. There was some initial reports that had identifying information with victim rumor. I removed what I saw. Probably should be rev deleted, too. --DHeyward (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I added this this earlier as I missed this other section. Made it subheading here. Looks like some has delrev'd versions but more could be done. No source we use should in any way identify victim and no old version should exist that does it either. The paramount BLP issue is minor victim of sex crime. --DHeyward (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
It is bizarre to say that we cannot cite reliable mainstream news sources just because their stories identify the victim in some way. This is an amazing argument and should not be applied in this case. See Trial of Michael Jackson where the alleged minor victim is specifically named. See Roman Polanski sexual abuse case where the 13 year old victim is named. Harvey Milk names his 16 year old sex partner (no prosecution involved). The name of the victim is more likely to appear in all the news coverage if there is a trial. Wikipedia cannot "unring a bell." That said, we need not repeat the specific identification hints pointing to the victim at this point in this case. Edison (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree. If anything, it is complete censorship to withhold public information. Reliable sources have identified victim as Hayden's daughter. 9711CA (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not real bizarre when the reliable sources like AP decided to do it when it was announced that the new charge was rape. AP specifically moved to that stance and removed all identifying language. For Wikipedia, the standard is what value does identifying the victim have in the article? In this case, none. What harm can it cause? Lots. WP will have records long after the news sites have archived theirs. Look at the Discovery Channel website. Purged. But we still have his article and will continue to. The least we can do is not increase the harm already inflicted. AP seems to agree. The article does not suffer by leaving it out and it doesn't gain by adding it in so do the least harm. --DHeyward (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Please cite the "AP" source itself, not a source that cites the AP, or only has a photo from the AP. Otherwise, it is withholding public information from Wiki. 9711CA (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I did. [1] Here's another [2]. Note the lack of identification of the victims. Also note that your source is the "gossip" section of sensational rag. --DHeyward (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
There is plenty of public information that is not in Wikipedia; it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is a person who we have not yet considered separately notable, and need not be identified, even indirectly. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Relevant policy is WP:AVOIDVICTIM as the victim is not notable outside the crime and is not the subject of any articles. The event can be covered without identifying the victim and indeed, most crimes of this nature do not name the victim especially if the are minors. There is no information relevant to the topics covered in WP to name the victim and prolonging victimization through identification is simply wrong. --DHeyward (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This is potentially likely to resurface with other victim. Noting material has changed though. No new charges and no new developments to the now-cancelled show. --DHeyward (talk) 03:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The naming needs to stop[edit]

I've provided two AP sources above that comply with our WP:AVOIDVICTIM and BLP policy as requested above. They do not name victims. 9711CA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) continues to try to insert the victims identifying information. It is not encyclopedic, is grossly harmful, indecent and unnecessary. The crime is rape of child. Multiple counts. It's covered. There is no indication that the victims are seeking publicity or that they are separately notable. Neither victim is the subject of a WP article. Nor does it appear that the identity of the victims would change the charges or the decision to cancel the show. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. @9711CA: has been asked before to not do this and appears determined not to abide by policy, consensus or decency. Do I need to propose a topic ban on ANI or can this be handled here? --DHeyward (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Tom Schweich[edit]

An American politician whose article has been fluffed up considerably based on primary sources. I've reverted those changes, but the article could benefit from the eyes of experienced editors. There's a couple of SPAs in the history (no need for me to link them--you'll see them immediately) and I have warned the most recent of them, Bradleyhaberstroh, for non-neutral editing. (See also Google.) Anyway, your attention is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Are there BLP issues? You may wish to ask for help on a different noticeboard. Choor monster (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Seriously? Yeah, it's a BLP and it's been fluffed up. He's a politician. This is an election year. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Seriously, yes. You mentioned primary sources, sounds like WP:OR problems. You mentioned fluffing up and the like, it sounds like WP:NPOV problems. You mentioned SPAs, could be WP:COI or worse. As for this noticeboard: "This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." Are these problem editors also editing Schweich's opponent? And up top it also says: "For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, consider using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
  • Perhaps we need an election-year noticeboard that cuts across issues, but until then, you haven't given any hint of BLP policy specific violations, hence my comment. Seriously. Choor monster (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
BLP articles often have to be protected from friends or supporters making them look to the general reader like ads, fantasies, or resumes. Sometimes BLP subjects will demand changes to an article that, if they received them, are more likely to put them in serious danger of public ridicule. WP:BLP seeks to avoid all situations of avoidable harm, removing material whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable. If someone's making a BLP non-compliant with WP:BLP, it doesn't matter if it's friend or foe, it's still an issue regarding a biography of a living person.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Elaqueate. I'm not going to waste any more time explaining the obvious to this other editor; I have 236 edits here and I think I know what this board is for. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Elaqueate: I asked about this noticeboard, not BLP policy itself. Your response doesn't seem to say a thing about this noticeboard. Yes, very good, BLP policy concerns several things: increased levels of verifiability, neutrality, increased sensitivity to privacy, and the like, and at one level, it does not distinguish, as you point out, the good or the bad. But BLP policy also stresses the urgent removal of one particular subclass of BLP violating items: the negative. And this noticeboard is, as I conveniently quoted above, primarily concerned with the negative, and recommends other venues for other extended problems. So whatever "obvious" point you were trying to make, I don't see it. Choor monster (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. BLP policy only specifically stresses anything about the "negative" if it's so bad that the whole page arguably has to be deleted; most of the issues currently on this board are not for situations like that. Otherwise it stresses the urgent removal of the "contentious". That is usually negative, and this board usually filled up with the negative cases. But positive or neutral material that is considered contentious when included should be removed quickly as well, per WP:BLP. If someone repeatedly filled a BLP's lead paragraph with how wonderful the subject was in bed, it would still be a BLP issue no matter how "positive" an editor could argue they were being. In any case "usually negative" is by definition not "only negative". Poorly sourced BLP puffery is a BLP issue and I never thought I'd see anyone argue it wasn't. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
BLP policy stresses that contentious material must be eliminated immediately. Unreferenced derogatory statements inserted into a BLP are not resolved by deleting the article, they are resolved by immediately deleting the material. Unreferenced statements in general, anywhere on WP, are subject to removal, but not with the same urgency, we have a tag for that. This includes non-contentious BLP statements. (Deleting the article is for newly created attack pages.)
I have the terrible, seemingly unique, habit of reading manuals, support documentation, policy statements, small print. It seems that most people not only do not do this, they have absolutely no comprehension of the concept of reading such material, and make nearly random guesses at what I must be asking about, keying off a few words. In this case, I have no questions whatsoever about what BLP policy states. I'm not probing some border where meaning might be not so clear. I have been asking about what this noticeboard's policy is, since Drmies summary did not accord well with it. See explicit quotations above.
I'm perfectly happy with actual policy not being the same as written policy, having done my share of neglecting documentation over the years. I'm also perfectly happy with names being simplistic approximations. Choor monster (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
That sounds like an awful problem, having a unique comprehension of words. I flurn for you. Your question specifically about the board has been asked and answered repeatedly at this point; This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. If you've found somewhere in the fine print that "issues" mean "only negative material, strictly defined" then you can point it out, but it will be news to the hundreds of threads this noticeboard has handled that concerned puffery, BLP-specific COI, general notices about news spikes regarding high-profile BLPs, technical changes to BLP templates, copyright issues specific to BLPs, requests made by BLP subjects, etc. and other things under the umbrella of "BLP issues requiring the eyes of more BLP-cognizant editors". There are multiple threads on the page now that are equivalent to this one, and it will be the same next month, as it was last month. The actual advice directing people to use this noticeboard is If you are concerned about the accuracy or appropriateness of biographical material on Wikipedia, report problems at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Concerns about accuracy and appropriateness have always been welcomed here, if they can't be easily dealt with in the article by the questioning editor alone. I hope User:Drmies is appreciating all the time he saved not dealing with this, as time is precious and once lost, does not come around here no more, as they say. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Elaqueate, but I wonder if there is any value in continuing this. Apparently I don't know the place and its guidelines as well as I should, but then, I haven't made half as many edits as some others have, and I'm happy to be corrected here. If anyone is still around, perhaps they can close this thread; the BLP in question has seen no activity recently. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
No reason to correct you; the Carl Dix, Nick de Bois, Bob Avakian threads currently active are identical to this one in general concern seeking feedback about the appropriateness of BLP material or editor behavior on BLP articles. Other examples can be found in any BLPN archive. If this is a closed issue I won't add anymore to it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Madconservationist did vandalism[edit]

Russell Mittermeier (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Madconservationist edited wrong information aiming at harassing the target.

Are you talking about this edit, which is the only one that shows up under that editor name? I am not clear on how that amounts to harassing the target; given that it is the user's only edit and its three months old, I don't see any ongoing problem. The edit was unsourced, but so is the current claims about his family. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Karl Racine[edit]

Karl Racine (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) article about a current candidate for municipal office in the District of Columbia. subject of edit war over last few days, previously had NPOV issues biased to smear the subject, but after very long recent edit has NPOV issues biased to paint the subject in a positive light and squash all negative information, despite significant media attention (subject is white collar criminal defense attorney). would greatly benefit from disinterested editors willing to sort through the sordid history and distill it down to relevant bits. - (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this article could benefit outside attention. This edit ostensibly is for POV reasons but I see no issue in the material removed. Coretheapple (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Carl Dix[edit]

The article is almost entirely primary sources written by the subject of the article himself. I would suggest opening it up for deletion for lack of notability. But some outside perspectives should come look at it with more experience and decide for themselves. Please check out this article. The article also seems to serve as a soapbox for the previous editors of the article who are likely part of the same organization as the subject of the article. --xcuref1endx (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe that Carl Dix is at least marginally notable. Please take a look at the BLP of his close associate Bob Avakian whose article has undergone a major and justified "haircut" in recent days. None of these articles should be "political leaflets" for fringe political parties. Similar attention can be devoted to this article as well. Use of a machete is highly recommended. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
The issue with these articles though is that they are generally watched over by members of the organization, so any changes are usually reverted back, so is there someone with administrative authority to look it over? See the Bob Avakian article, the changes it has undergone the past few days has already been reverted back to what it was. --xcuref1endx (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Kamrul Hassan Elahi[edit]

Kamrul Hassan Elahi (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) Article appears to be an autobiography. A few hours ago when the article did not have any references I added a WP:BLP PROD tag to it. Author responded by removing the tag and adding external links to the subject's (author's?) LinkedIn and Google+ profiles. By my reading of WP:BLP PROD (and please correct me if I'm wrong) removal of the tag requires the addition of a reliable source, which a social media profile is not. I re-added the template and notified the author; shortly thereafter it was removed again. I have since re-added it again. Input is appreciated: what do I do now? If I keep re-adding the template will it be a violation of WP:3RR? Did I violate WP:BITE in my interaction with the author? --Richard Yin (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

PRODing it was OK, and I would not worry about 3RR in these circumstances. I'll keep an eye on it. - Cwobeel (talk)
Frankly, I think CSD A7 applies here. I don't see anything that shows this is a significant person. —C.Fred (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy-deleted per WP:CSD#A7. JohnCD (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the speedy. But for future reference, Richard Yin, please note the PROD rule: "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a PROD tag from an article, do not replace it." Bold in the original. Don't restore a removed PROD tag. The user doesn't have to explain the removal; it's all in the linked policy. (It can be very frustrating, I know.) Once a PROD tag has been removed, the article will have to be either AfD'd or speedied. No more prodding. BTW, I see that you said you'd userfied it,Richard, but I think you forgot to actually put it on the user's page.[3] Bishonen | talk 20:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC).
Not necessarily true. As the template documentation says, "If the template is removed from the article, it may be replaced in certain cases. Please refer to the BLP PROD policy for details." —C.Fred (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I did userfy it. It was blank at the time. I may have been too hasty. --Richard Yin (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Dennis Rawlins[edit]

Dennis Rawlins (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Dennis Rawlins is an unsourced one-line biography, followed by an extensive discussion of various controversies he has been involved in. Much of the material appears to be WP:FRINGE to me. Many of the refs are simply to a journal and a year, without article name, author or page number making checking challenging. As far as I can tell, not a single biographical fact in the biography is well supported. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

What a mess of an article. One approach could be to stubify and build from there. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I've done the stubifying (with some new references). Maybe you can do the "building from there" part. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Shooting of Michael Brown RFC[edit]

The following RFC Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#RfC:_Should_article_mention_Brown_had_no_.28adult.29_criminal_record.3F could use additional input from uninvolved editors. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Michael Brown's juvenile record, or should I say the lack of one, has now been introduced into the article content as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Zak Ibsen[edit]

Zak Ibsen (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

This is Zak Ibsen, the subject of a Biographical page. I have attempted to engage the editors of a page with my name as the subject, in a constructive manner, to correct the contents of the page. The results have not been positive, so request the page titled, Zak Ibsen, be removed from Wikipedia, as the information contained is not accurate. Thank you for removing the Zak Ibsen page from Wikipedia's Biography pages.

Zak Ibsen Zak Ibsen (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Zak, I don't think the article can be deleted, but in its current state the article is a stub, with just minimal and what seems to be accurate information. If there is incorrect information, please point it out so that it can be looked at. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, as per Cwobeel, what is it exactly that is not correct? It seems the information you were attempting to add read far too promotional and was unsourced. Meatsgains (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@Zak Ibsen: I'm sorry this has been frustrating for you. As this diff shows, user TheRedPenOfDoom correctly removed a large amount of unsourced and promotional-sounding material from the article. We can't have a "vanity CV" in lieu of a biography - we prefer a stub instead. You are welcome to add material, neutrally worded and properly sourced, or refrain from editing the article altogether. And we do not delete articles because the subject can't edit them to their liking. We understand it's difficult to write about yourself neutrally, and we understand that some aspects of subjects' lives sometimes cannot be sourced, and personal recollections by the subject are not acceptable, so that type of material must be omitted. But these things are not negotiable. As I said, we'd rather be stuck with a stub. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, as the subject of the article with an inherent conflict of interest, Zak Ibsen should not edit the article directly. they should place sources and suggested content on the talk page and let a third party determine whether and how to include it in the article itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
In the process of removing self-promotional content and tone from the text, a lot of basic, non-contentious content got removed as well (notably, his MLS tenure and championships and his membership on the Olympic and men's national teams). This left the text noticeably incomplete, even for a stub. I've revised the article to include the basic facts with reliable sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the clean up! (But I will note that claims of being an Olympian and professional national athlete do in fact fall in the bucket of "contentious".) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a head's up[edit]

I've been reading various versions of Sarah Palin's appearance -- one is here -- at an Anchorage party last Saturday night which, er, doesn't reflect well on her. (Another, which is fuller, can be read here.) I'm not advocating that it be added -- while I find this story very entertaining, I'm undecided whether it's notable -- I figure an edit war is waiting to break out over adding it to one of the articles about Palin. -- llywrch (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Malik Mohammad Jehangir[edit]

Malik Mohammad Jehangir (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) How I could improve article on Malik Mohammad Jehangir? I wrote many others but no idea why I am not able to enhance it. Kindly assist that I be able to furnish my writing skills and to write on more living persons --Zainkazmi1 (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

In general, you find reliably published sources that discuss the subject and present the the contents of those sources in the importance that mainstream academics view them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Carl Baugh[edit]

The lead of this article is currently being edited to say that Baugh's young-earth Creationist views (and use of "science" to flog them) have been "challenged" or "questioned", instead of debunked by scientists. The language desired by other editors is a violation of WP:FRINGE, in my view -- especially as that language suggests that Baugh's views might actually be right. When these views include the notion that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, I think we're well over the line of doing a disservice to our readers. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Premakeerthi de Alwis[edit] Assassination section

Please note that there has been a dispute going on about the assassination of the person mentioned in the article, Premakeerthi de Alwis. De Alwis's murder has been officially investigated and murderer has been sentenced in the High Court of Colombo, Sri Lanka and the verdict has also been upheld by the Appeals Court of Sri Lanka.

However, nearly a quarter century later, his wife, Nirmal de Alwis has written a book accusing Hudson Samarasinghe, the Chairman of the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation and self published it. Recently at the 25th death anniversary of the deceased, Nirmala has shouted out at the president of Sri Lanka "why he was protecting, her husband's killer, Samarasinghe". This shouting at the president received a huge amount of publicity from mainstream media. However, those media reports are merely quoting what Nirmala de Alwis was saying. Not a single person in the world has made this accusation except for Nirmala de Alwis. Her claims are knowingly false and unsubstantiated. Mr. Samarasinghe has never been questioned or investigated for the murder of de Alwis.

A user named Wipeouting(other names -Academiava, Academiava2, Academiava3) has been trying to get this information included in the article. This information has been repeatedly refused by Wikipedia administrators as it violates the biographies of the living persons. However, wipeoutings plea was heard by an administrator (Bill w) and has been requested another administrator Obi2canibe to rewrite the article to include this unsubstantiated claim by his wife. Although Samarasinghe's name was not mentioned, all the references are indirectly pointing to Hudson Samarasinghe which ultimately injures Samarasinghe. You can find an analysis of her false accusation at

I am kindly requesting that unsubstantiated accusations starting with the line "In 2009 de Alwis' widow Nirmala" be removed from this article. --Ramya20 (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Ramya20: Two RS document that she made the claim you mention above. And the way the information is written it clearly states that this is nothing more and nothing less than a claim she made in a book she wrote. On first look, to me, it seems both notable and unbiased, since it's stated as her opinion and not as fact. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
If you find a properly sourced and relevant counter claim made in response to her allegations you may want to add it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The section clearly violates the WP:BLPCRIME which is a part of the Wikipedia policy regarding biographies of living persons. It states that cases like these accusations of criminal activity should not be added unless a conviction has been secured --Ramya20 (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the material per WP:BLPCRIME. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
@Diannaa: It is disappointing you have unilaterally removed the content based on the canvassing of User:Ramya20. WP:BLPCRIME states [in full] "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." I have highlighted the first part because User:Ramya20 has deliberately left this out in his canvassing.
If the accused is well known, we can include the accusations if they are reported in reliable sources, even if the accusations haven't resulted in a criminal charge (e.g. Cliff Richard, Jim Davidson, Jimmy Tarbuck) or even if the accused has been acquitted (e.g. Nigel Evans, William Roche). The individual accused by Nirmala de Alwis is well known in Sri Lanka, he is the chairman of a national broadcaster, politician, former MP and a twice presidential candidate. Even if the accused was "relatively unknown" we only have to have serious consideration on the merits of including the accusation, there is no automatic presumption that the accusation must be excluded.
Needless to say that the accusation must be written in a neutral manner and must attribute the source of the accusation, not make the accusation in Wikipedia's voice. This was what the content you removed did.--obi2canibetalk contr 13:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I am no more acting unilaterally than any other editor would do; it's not an administrative action. I don't believe including the material is the right thing to do, as including these unproven accusations could do real-world harm to the person. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Obi2canibe has definitely improved the article and I thank him for that. However, unlike the sample biographies he has provided above, Hudson Samarasinghe has never been questioned or criminally investigated in this case. He has never been associated with this murder in any way for last 25 years. If Nirmala de Alwis has filed a lawsuit or if she has filed a police complaint on her own accord, it is fair to include that information. However, a for-profit book written nearly 25 years post his death is a questionable motive. Further, it is unfair to include accusations when this murder has been officially investigated and closed. --Ramya20 (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Igor Girkin[edit]

Igor Girkin (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Poorly sourced rumor about Igor Girkin "found hanged in Rostov-on-Don, Russia" should be removed.

Were this true, there would be good sources. This entry is neither verifiable nor neutral.

Just look at claimed source. Makes wikipedia look foolish, being used for implied death threats.

Thank you.

(I have never commented or posted at wikipedia in any way before now.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Solved, it was not verifiable. It was removed by the user that posted above: contribs at 22:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC) --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Tyrone Hayes[edit]

Pardon me for editing the top of the discussion, but for clarity we are discussing material in the Atrazine article, and not currently included in the Tyrone Hayes article. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a disagreement about the admissibility as a reliable source of the following material posted (all at the same URL) on the Syngenta corporate website:

  1. 1 A letter from Syngenta to the University of California complaining of "unethical behavior" by Tyrone Hays. This letter makes certain allegations that I will not repeat here in the event pending a ruling on whether this would be a violation of BLP, but the letter can be seen here.
  2. 2 A letter from University of California legal counsel, on University letterhead and signed by University of California Vice Provost Nancy Chu, stating that Hays had acknowledged certain behaviors and agreed to cease and desist.
  3. 3 Photocopies of some emails sent by Hays to Syngenta scientists. These have been linked to in a a Nature article, have been directly quoted by the New Yorker having been on the Syngenta website since 2010, and would surely have sparked a libel suit if they were faked.

I believe these letters and the cited emails from Hays are a reliable source, as they have been quoted/linked by at least two reliable secondary sources, the letters are on official letterhead and signed by senior officials of the company and university, and have been on the website unchallenged by either Hays or the University for over 4 years. I'd like to ask @Binksternet: his opposing point of view also, so we can be careful to remain within the guidelines. thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

No, we cannot use the Syngenta-hosted documents, which can of course be shown in altered form by Syngenta, for the purpose of attacking Hays, their bitter enemy. The correct guideline here is WP:BLPPRIMARY, which says no legal documents. Instead, we rely on third party discussion of the matter. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Binksternet. This is what I took from WP:BLPPRIMARY:
"Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies"
I believe that in citing the Nature article, my use of this material was compliant. Also, I disagree with your characterization of these letters as legal documents. Aside from wikilawyering, is there any particular reason you believe this material to be non-authentic? Formerly 98 (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe it adds anything to the article and the secondary source is sufficient to discuss the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks NorthBySouthBaranof. Any objection to the use of the following secondary source?
Syngenta has also attacked Hayes in many ways, including threatening his family, disrupting his lectures, funding an attack website, and so on. Both sides have delivered hot broadsides at the other. However, this is an encyclopedia we're writing, and we're not here to fan the flames. We use calm, neutral language rather than language to inflame. None of the spiteful little details of this brouhaha should be in any of our articles, just a general description or summary. Binksternet (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Well said Binksternet, but the article already contains several paragraphs describing Syngenta's alleged improper behavior. I think that {{WP:NPOV]] requires that we treat the misbehavior of both sides in the dispute equally. I will be happy to leave out the Science Magazine material if we can agree to cut back the lengthy discussion of the allegations against Syngenta, some of which have no corroboration.
No, that's not what NPOV requires. NPOV does not require that we treat things "equally" — rather, it requires that we weight allegations in accordance with the weight given them in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: I respectfully request that you stop editing the article for POV while the discussion is ongoing here and that you revert the edits you have made during the previous 30 minutes pending the attainment of a consensus. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Then likewise, I have reverted your recent edits per the bold, revert, discuss cycle and I request that you discuss your proposed additions and changes on the talk page and gain consensus before adding them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: You reverted my edit without giving any reason other than "Please discuss before making changes per BRD", which directly contradicts,_revert,_discuss_cycle#What_BRD_is.2C_and_is_not.

"BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense."

Please also see WP:FIXED

""Please discuss before making such drastic changes." is listed as an argument to specifically avoid. It is certainly not reason enough by itself to revert.

I respectfully request that you return the article to the state it was in at the beginning of this discussion, and engage in a meaningful discussion regarding why you don't think that Haye's behavior, which is discussed at length in 3 first tier scientific publications, is worthy of equal coverage with that of Syngenta. Thanks. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the primary materials sourced to, which is of course extremely biased in the matter. Regarding the BRD cycle: discussion is supposed to be conducted with the recent change reverted, that is, the article staying the way it was before the editor made the disputed change. Binksternet (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Sauce for the goose, Formerly 98. You did not discuss my good-faith efforts to improve the section before simply flatly reverting all of my changes back to your preferred version.
You made bold changes to the article. I made bold changes to your changes, in an effort to improve them and make them conform to the sources. Rather than continue engaging in good-faith back-and-forth editing, you just undid all my edits. What does that tell me? That you're not interested in editorial engagement, but simply making the article conform to your POV. In my mind, that makes all of your edits suspect. So I reverted them in return.
You can hardly argue that it's somehow fair and justifiable for you to revert my edits but unfair and unjustifiable for me to revert your edits. Well, I suppose you can argue it, but nobody is likely to buy it. It amounts to "I get to edit this article, you don't." And that's not how Wikipedia works. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: The issue that my reversion was intended to address was that you began editing the article when a discussion was still in progress rather than waiting for consensus to be reached.
You still have not provided any reason for your reversion of my edits that is compliant with Wikipedia's policies. Could we begin to address the issues here? Formerly 98 (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
And? There is no prohibition against editing an article while a discussion is underway. You didn't wait for a consensus to be reached before adding the information, and as Binksternet notes, the BRD cycle suggests that discussion take place with the disputed material removed and the status quo retained. Once again, sauce for the goose.
Apart from the BLP issue already discussed here — that the primary source is likely to be inappropriate — the reliable sources don't seem to support the language you use in regards to the studies. It seems there are other studies which support Hayes' position, and the way you wrote it did not disclose that fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I will drop the subject of the reverts for now, as further discussion of that issue does not seem to be helping us find common ground.
With respect to the language and information in the article, here aree are my concerns and proposals:
  1. There is a lot of conflicting conclusions in the primary literature about amphibian feminization by atrazine and the only secondary references reflect the EPAs viewpoint. Can we make a list of all the key papers along with any concerns about industry funding and the like to make sure we have covered the best arguments for both sides of the issue?
  2. The article in its current form goes on at great length about Syngenta's bad behavior, including discussion of a lot of non-corroborated accusations, but mentions nothing about Hayes' misbehavior although both have been extensively documented in reliable secondary sources. I see this as a problem of balance and NNPOV. But the extensive criticism of behavior in this article is really fairly tangental to the subject of atrazine, and I would be happy to reduce the amount of space spent on these accusations against both sides. Can we find a compromise here?
  3. I'd like to see the data describing the actual atrazine levels in surface waters, in drinking water, and in the studies described in the text restored. I believe it is relevant to evaluating the level of threat and am not aware of any persuasive reason to deny our readers this information.

ThanksFormerly 98 (talk) 09:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Irene Caesar[edit]

Irene Caesar (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

This article about a Russian "conceptual artist" is seeing some energetic back-and-forth editing, and, I think, would benefit from some scrutiny by BLP-experienced editors. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: I have restored the foregoing notice which was improperly removed [4] by one of the editors making changes on the page. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Skyler Page[edit]

There is currently on an going discussion on Skyler Page on whether to include the fact that he was accused of sexual assault. Every source says that his firing of Clarence was a result of the accusations. WP:BLPCRIME says " For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Some editors are using this to say that we cannot add the allegations until there is a conviction. However, it says "consider not including " and not to never include. I think that this is one of the times when we should include because every source that talks about him being fired mentions the allegations. Even if it turns out to be false, I still feel that the allegations are important and belong in the article. Skyler Page has received more media attention since the allegations than he had when working on the show. However, we need a consensus on the matter. So please weigh in on this discussion. JDDJS (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

JDDJS is a relatively new editor to the page. There has been consensus for a long time that the reason is to be omitted because it is a BLP violation to include. Indeed, multiple editors have affirmed this and even edited to keep the reason out of the article. So it's not just 'me' editing it. Additionally, it's relevant that there have been at least two discussions about this, one on this very board about it: BLPN noticeboard link and One on the TV show's article talk page. Tutelary (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I never said it was just you. However, neither discussion you mention shows any consensus to not include it on the Skyler Page article. The first one was just between you and another editor and the other editor said that it was off topic on the TV article and that it would need better sources to be included on the subject article. I have included several reliable sources. In the other discussion you mention, there is a consensus to not include the allegations on the Clarence article. That does not mean that it cannot be included on Page's article. So, currently, there is absolutely no consensus to not to include the allegations on Skyler Page. JDDJS (talk) 02:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Is this the issue?__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes. It is also talked about here: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] JDDJS (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider most of those usable sources. Quality is more important than quantity here, as gossip can be spread widely and still be BLP-problematic.__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sure not all of them are reliable. But the Daily Mail is reliable. The AV Club is one of the most common sources I've seen for TV reviews, so it's news report has to be some what reliable. Georgia Newsday also seems to be reliable, and I know I've seen Deadline used as a source before. And there aren't any sources besides CN press release for Page's firing that do not mention the sexual assault allegations. It's not debatable whether or not Page was accused of sexual assault because it is obvious that he has been. The question is whether or not it should be mentioned in the aritlce. JDDJS (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not a reliable enough source in this case. WP:BLP guides us, in spirit an in letter, to be extremely cautious regarding adding contentious material about living persons. Whether you have 1 or 50 gossip columns mentioning this, it does not belong on Wikipedia. @JDDJS: unless there is a discussion you can link that shows very broad consensus to include this material, our default per BLP is to keep it out. VQuakr (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not gossip. He has clearly been accused of sexual assault. That is not debatable. I can show you exact tweets accusing him of sexual assault. The Daily Mail is not a gossip column. Georgia Newsday is not a gossip column. The question is whether or not to include it on the article. I don't understand why we can't include it. All the recent media attention towards Skyler Page is about the sexual assault accusations. While Skyler Page is not well known, I would argue that almost everyone who does know about him, already knows about the accusations. (P.S., while this is not a reason to include it on the page, people have already complained on tumblr about how WP is hiding this). JDDJS (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how this effects the discussion, but after looking further into this, I found this [17] and [18]. Apparently, Page's close friend has claimed that Page is has bipolar and possibly schizophrenic and has exhibited other wild behavior. Multiple sources have mention this post, so the part about him being Page's friend is true. I'm honestly not sure what to make of this in general. JDDJS (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the article mentions he was fired with a link for details, without Wikipedia implying he's guilty of anything, That's good for now. I would cite it to the Variety piece over something less obviously reliable, but I don't think adding more BLP speculative material would be appropriate, at this point. If he pops up again, and a source references any issues in a way that we can use neutrally, then it should be re-visited. Wikipedia has no deadline, and I think his firing will probably prove a major event in his life over time, but it will be better if we include it in the least-sensationalized way we can.__ E L A Q U E A T E 10:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't get why we can't at least say something like "Multiple news sources have claimed that an accusation of sexual assault was the cause for his firing." That's not implying that he is guilty. That is stating a fact. I have never seen Wikipedia hide relevant, notable and sourced information before. If it was a couple news outlets talking about the sexual assault accusations, I would agree with not including it. But everything that mentions his firing also mentions the sexual assault accusations. I don't see any reason why Wikipedia should be the only thing to mention his firing without mentioning the accusations. JDDJS (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree that WP:BLPCRIME would advise against including the accusations for such a minor, non-public figure. I will say it's most unusual to find Tutelary fighting so hard to keep this material out, considering their own various attempts to add much more poorly supported disparaging material into the biographies of Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian.--Cúchullain t/c 12:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Jeffrey Beall[edit]

User: has been making repeated unsourced POV-pushing additions to Jeffrey Beall (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views), as well as once to its associated talk page. (Example: [19]) I think these edits are clearly a BLP violation (as well as WP:OR) and that this user should therefore be blocked. Jinkinson talk to me 18:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed the edit your mentioned above, since it is not properly sourced. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • IP has been blocked for edit warring for 24 hours, article semi-protected for 48 hours. --Randykitty (talk) 08:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Ahmed Hassan Imran[edit]

Ahmed Hassan Imran (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) Much of my edit in the article was deleted by citing that it was a libelous information. I had tried to write the article in a non-partisan manner by citing reliable secondary sources in inline documentation. I had included opposing viewpoints on matters related to the subject. However, major portion of the article was deleted without any notice or discussion. I reverted it back because it was pure vandalism to me and an unfortunate edit war followed. I stopped editing but personal attacks have continued since. The article has now been protected. However I believe that the claims on which major portion of the article was deleted should revisited. Can I seek that support through this request? BengaliHindu (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not true. I posted my edit reason to the editor's page and those information were recently published on a news story which is not verified. The news report itself presented accusations made by other politicians and even these reports are changing day by day. Ahmed Hassan Imran himself challenged those accusations. Verification of the allegations are subject to court's ruling so I requested the other editor to wait till further reports come out or any verdict from the court. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Verifiability are particularly relevant here as such unverified accusation based on a news report against a living person damages his reputation and potentially harmful to him. I believe an encyclopedic article about a living person should not broadcast a recent news story which is unproven and challenged as this may be libelous to the person in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MehulWB (talkcontribs) 16:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that the number of editors with BLP expertise that are able to assess the validity and reliability of the sources used in that article is probably closer to zero. So I'll just point you both to WP:BLPCRIME and ask that you use that as guidance. Otherwise we'll have to protect the article indefinitely. Alternatively, searching for and using sources in English would go a long way to make this easier. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Genaro García Luna[edit]

On the Wikipedia page for Genaro García Luna, somebody removed the "Links to Organized Crime" section, despite well-sourced links to articles in both English and Spanish that document the controversies surrounding Genaro García Luna, including a "Forbes" article and books from a respected Mexican journalist. On the talk page, the person claims these sources have been discredited, yet provides no evidence or sources except for his or her own opinion. I suspect this person is linked to Genaro García Luna; therefore, this page should be protected, or at least reviewed and monitored by an editor to prevent further vandalism and edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Alex Marcoux[edit]

Would anyone like to take a look at Alex Marcoux? It's rather promotional and there may be notability questions, but there's also an apparent WP:COI in that the article was created by MSquaredPR (account recently blocked as an organisational username) and cites the website of M Squared Public Relations and Marketing which carries a short profile of Alex Marcoux as the firm's co-founder. I think it needs a look from someone who's more familiar with these issues than I am - I don't think I'd guide anyone well (and I'd really like a little wikibreak too). Sorry. NebY (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Marcoux DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

False etymology[edit]

I've removed a claim that a specific scholar's work is incompetent or dishonest, a claim which otherwise amounts to defamation per se. The source is an unsigned blog devoted to attacking the author's work. I'm mentioning it here for comment since this seems like a blatant violation of BLP. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine. It's a blog, which usually cannot be considered reliable (it's just one person's opinion), and the wording was seriously non-neutral. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
That bit absolutely fails WP:SPSBLP so was correct to remove. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Good removal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


Thisnothing123, who already has a history of issues in this and other articles, has been engaging in disruptive editing on JTG, a pro wrestler. Issues:

  1. The user is insisting on a height of 5'9" that is unreferenced vs. a height of 6'2" that is referenced (references seem to say either 6'1" or 6'2"). It has been explained by me to this user that the height concerned is billed height rather than actual height to no avail. This user has also substantially increased the wrestler's weight and didn't supply a reference. In both cases, the user is insisting on using data from their own personal experience. At first, this user seemed to accept that a citation was needed for his changes, then just a while ago, the user removed the {{citation needed}} template along with other removals.
  2. The user has removed JTG's image several times, with explanations of replacing the image, but the user only deletes it.
  3. The user has been removing article content without any explanation.

This is difficult to narrow to specific diffs, but this user has been seeming to be going back and forth with these edits since early July. The user doesn't seem to care that his stats have no backup and doesn't seem to want to understand any other wiki protocols. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 22:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Ill Child[edit]

Could someone take a look here. According to the sources, she is not "considered the youngest", but "considered among the youngest," so I don't see any notability. I'd rather not use AfD, but if someone wants to use A7 I have no objections. The usual "do no harm" reason applies here--altho there are a few news accounts, WP is more prominent. I understand from the accounts her parents want the publicity, and I can understand why they might want to make a cause out of it, but it still seems unfair to the child. And there's something a little unusual about the name of the contributor. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Gregory van der Wiel article[edit]

There are persistent WP:BLP violations by Vanderwielobsessed (talk · contribs) at Gregory van der Wiel (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views). I have already issued a warning at the Vanderwielobsessed talk page, but Vanderwielobsessed persists with the WP:BLP violations. Flyer22 (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Requesting advice on Giuseppe Macario[edit]

This article about an Italian entrepreneur seems to be vandalized by a person that claims it to be self-published and doesn't like the sources (maybe because of some sort of veiled personal vendetta?) such as the ACM ICPC official website and a well-known Italian newspaper. Is there a way to avoid the sources being removed? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Help at Danièle Watts requested[edit]

The article Danièle Watts (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) was just created after an unpleasant incident she had with the LAPD which has attracted a lot of attention online (her account naturally differs from that of the police), and users have been adding potentially defamatory information about it, in particular giving 'eyewitness' accounts as fact. Last I checked, the information wasn't extremely biased, but I think the amount of information for this single incident is undue for a biography. Some more editors' help is needed. I am also concerned about the subject's notability, so I have brought the article to AfD, and it'd great if people could help establish whether or not she is notable. —innotata 06:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure why you say her account should "naturally" differ from others. We don't know, actually, as the tape that was allegedly released has not been identified as such by LAPD. An unidentified IP address has tried to say she was a liar, by misunderstanding an article from Buzzfeed they used as a reference. I am concerned that this stub may get deleted when it should really be expanded. I created it because she has appeared in several films, including an international success, and she is currently a main cast member of a major TV series alongside Kelsey Grammer. Please see the discussion here. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)