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)
Shortcuts:
Search this noticeboard & archives


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


Centralized discussion

Louise Mensch[edit]

Louise Mensch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article about the brilliant, colourful, and rather eccentric figure, a "chick lit" author and former British MP who is now writing on matters relating to cybersecurity and the Russian interference in US and Western European politics, has seen some problematic editing recently. As often happens with such figures, she appears to have attracted POV editors who have added add inadequately sourced, cherry-picked, or misrepresented content that diminishes the subject and marginalizes her work. I would appreciate it if editors would have a look at the article and talk page and help contributors to improve the article. Most recently, a thread on the talk page here [1] has attracted one editor who seems to be denying fundamental BLP protections. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 21:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in this article but examining the talk page I'd ask why you brought this here instead of responding to this comment, addressed to you:
  • Just because you called them "BLP smear violations" does not mean they are. You've already had ample time to "dispute" the content. Have you have disputed that these are — as the sources say — "conspiracy theories"? No. Or have you disputed that Mensch actually said those things? No. Have argued that the sources are being misquoted? No. Have you tried to explain why this content might theoretically be contentious? No. Here's what you have done: you have deleted sourced content with a false edit summary; threatened me with DS and then refused to explain why; cried BLP without bringing up a single specific source or claim. None of these are not valid ways of challenging sourced content. Stop wasting my time — I've stopped wasting yours and mine on the "Russian Interference" article. Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Wherever it's discussed you'll have to identify which specific claims you believe to be BLP violations and why. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Can you explain why you've removed sections sourced to articles by, or interviews with, Mensch herself in reliable sources? [2]. If there's one reliable source for people's views, it's their own words. Black Kite (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Look back a bit further, I think it's the conspiracy theory stuff that is problematic. Specifico, You can't exclude a political commentator / authors self disclosed views. That's perfectly sourced and relevant given the books she writes. The conspiracy stuff needs a closer look but it's approaching midnight. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, some of the other stuff is ... questionable, but that section is perfectly OK. I have no idea why it was pulled. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘As often happens in BLPs of lesser-known figures, POV editors can cherry pick self-sourced statements or statements from what would otherwise be RS, but not mainstream-view, coverage to color the BLP in an unfavorable light. I didn't come here to continue any content disputes, nor is this BLPN the place for me to respond again to any article talk page editor who reiterates here questions that I have already addressed on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 00:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Only in death: I don't consider "the intercept" "the daily beast" and "the independent" strong RS for extraordinary claims that paint Ms. Mensch as a lunatic. Same goes for "international business times." Same goes for a 'new republic" opinion piece by an author who tweets "bat guano" with a photo of Ms. Mensch here [3]. Call me crazy folks, but if there is solid mainstream sourcing to back these extraordinary claims about Ms. Mensch, then there will be no problem for its insistent editors to find rock-solid references. That's a key part of our BLP principles here. We give that protection to every BLP subject, not just the more conventional ones with more widely-held views. SPECIFICO talk 00:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The Independent is hardly some random website, but more importantly their story quite literally has a video of Mensch on the BBC saying exactly what they claim. I dunno that one can get much more reliable than being able to watch her express precisely the views ascribed to her, and it's hard to claim it's UNDUE to repeat something she was willing to go on national television and say.
Are the rest of these "extraordinary claims" going to turn out to be just as evidently true?
Having read the edit linked above I also think you were a wee bit too keen to remove articles written by Mensch, which give the reader an insight into what the subject of the article thinks. You don't seem to feel the need to remove other articles written by Mensch such as the Telegraph article in "Writing career"; why is that? Pinkbeast (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
An encyclopedia article, and especially a BLP, is not merely a collection of facts. As I stated at the outset, this is a rather shall we say energetic woman, who's said she is ADHD and says and does all sorts of things. It's therefore especially important to rely on a balanced viewpoint as reflected in the most reliable and reasoned sources that reflect a mainstream POV. This problem comes up over and over in BLP's of figures who have lots of interviews, blog posts, self published and op-ed pieces, etc. WP editors are prone to select bits that fit their viewpoint rather than the mainstream consensus view or the central view of all independent observers. "Writing Career?" -- actually I tried to re-write the sentence about "defending chick-lit" but after looking at the cited source, it looked like such a mess I ran out of time. At any rate, I don't think that section is apt to reflect poorly on her, and I don't see a BLP issue. I think the "defending" bit is UNDUE but not a smear. SPECIFICO talk 03:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry it was late but Black Kite got what I meant - I agree the conspiracy stuff certainly needs a closer look - but the Independant is a reliable source to use in general. The Intercept, IBT etc are variable in quality depending on what they are being used for - which is why I think that whole section was questionable. What I was referring to in 'perfectly sourced' was her self-expressed views on feminism etc from the Guardian (which was the latest section you removed.) Which are both reasonable to include and relevant given her writing career - there is no policy based (BLP or sourcing) reason to exclude them, and UNDUE would be a hard sell given the subject matter. If there are other pieces on feminism that she has done that are contradictory, then by all means there is a discussion to be had about what to include. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Mensch's views on feminism are hardly being cherry-picked here to paint her in a bad light by selecting an incidental aspect to focus on; Heat Street mentions them about as often as it repeats the fatuous "no safe spaces" mantra, and failed Tory MPs aren't such regular writers for the Grauniad that two articles represents a tiny slice of her vast oeuvre. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Breitbart conspiracy theories - well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary facts. Ideally, I would like to see another person claim that he died in suspicious circumstances or a mention in an unrelated source some way down the line (ideally after Trump's left office, which may be a while, I'll admit) so we're not just citing a walled garden. However, The Independent is generally considered a good source, and it is transcribing something Mensch said on national television, so I don't have an issue with it, as long as it is given due weight in the article compared to everything else she has said, and if it actually says what the sources do - which is just she thinks it may be the case, and nothing else. BLPs are a moving target and so it is feasible in time this issue will become less important than it is now, at point we can revisit things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Do we need another person? All the article says is that Mensch said she thinks it happened. That's pretty well beyond dispute. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
UNDUE weight in a BLP is not OK. This is a public figure who's said and done an unusual number of things. Other such figures might be Pres. Trump, Alan Dershowitz, Madonna, et al. Wikipedia can't just cherrypick facts or incidents that are not widely demonstrated to be noteworthy and central to the narrative of such figures' lives. Content that reflects the mainstream view of Ms. Mensch, or any notable public figure, will have many first-rate RS citations for the content. Many of the citations in the dubious content in this article are marginal at best. We shouldn't need to use them for BLP narratives. SPECIFICO talk 16:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I would generally agree with Specifico (and Ritchie) regarding this point. UNDUE is not about 'is this true', its about demonstrating 'is this relevant and notable enough to be in an article?'. Plenty of notable people have odd ideas, sometimes these ideas get coverage and sometimes they just disappear. My rule of thumb is I like to see at least two reputable sources covering something, rather than just one. This is not a universal opinion, but from the above it looks like Ritchie is broadly in line with me on this one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I must say that initially, I had no knowledge or opinion at all concerning Ms. Mensch, and then after reading the article as of a week or so ago, I had the impression she was, as some bloggers and tweeters say, a lunatic. Then having done some research, I found that it was not hard to find RS that give a very different impression, that of a rather brilliant and focused individual with a quirky personality. Among other things, she appears to enjoy being provocative and will not apologize for being an assertive and flamboyant 21st-century female. In my experience, many such women's BLPs suffer the same sorts of issues that I found in this article. SPECIFICO talk 17:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
It was notable enough to be in the Independent and on the BBC. SPECIFICO themselves describes her as someone who writes on "cybersecurity and the Russian interference in US and Western European politics"; if a conspiracy theory about someone being assassinated by Putin doesn't fall into the latter topic, what does? In other words, even SPECIFICO finds themselves describing her in terms that make this conspiracy theory of hers entirely relevant, not some side issue. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Pinkbeast, we're not talking AfD and notability here. Moreover, WP articles are not just a collection of everything on a topic relating to BLP subject, even the topic of their current activity. The question is DUE WEIGHT, and you are not addressing that issue or the points previously raised by others in this thread. SPECIFICO talk 21:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I am addressing that point, you just don't like the answer. If someone who writes on "Russian interference in US and Western European politics" advances a conspiracy theory about an American political commentator being assassinated by Putin, it's entirely germane to the article. It is not giving undue weight to Mensch's views on feminism, either, when half the columns she ever wrote for a major national newspaper were about those views. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: "I found that it was not hard to find RS that give a very different impression" Then cite the facts and opinions contained in these "RS". You have not cited single source: not in the article, not on the talk page, not anywhere. Stop wasting people's time. Seriously. Guccisamsclub (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

With all his misty-eyed fawning over the person in question, it's not difficult to see who the real POV editor is in this discussion. Sometimes people just have to accept that if their idol spent most of their life doing things which paint themselves in a bad light, an encyclopaedic summary of that person will struggle to do much else. 62.255.118.6 (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, are you talking about Mensch or Trump? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I removed two statements that I feel are cherrypicked disparagement from marginal sources, per other discussions on RSN over the past couple of years, and I am disappointed to see them immediately reinserted in the article at this diff. I would welcome comments just on this point. It seems to me that there would be much better, unquestionable sources if this content deserves WEIGHT in the article. SPECIFICO talk 00:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

What did you honestly expect with this edit? Your vague and perpetually shifting "concerns" are completely without merit, a fact that's been pointed out to you over and over an over again. You routinely delete factual and uncontroversial content with edit summaries like "removed BLP smear", suggesting that you either don't know what a "smear" is or that you don't care. As far as notability is concerned, what sources would be required to establish it? Front page of the NYT? Cambridge Uni Press? The Holy Bible? If that's the case we should delete the entire article, because Mensch is a non important enough to receive any attention in these kinds of sources. So, The New Republic (x2), The Intercept, The Daily Best, BBC, The Independent, The International Business Times will have to do. There is no grounds for "questioning" that she said any of these these things, because everyone who believes in the existence of a physical world knows she that did. Please stop disrupting the site! Guccisamsclub (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Please present some additional Reliable Sources, more mainstream than what's been offered, to establish that these are noteworthy facts about and in the context of Ms. Mensch's life and work. If these are not cherrypicked bits from these marginal sources, it should be easy to find unimpeachable sources that discuss the significance of these snippets. SPECIFICO talk 02:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
This is a bit of a dodge, both because of the suggestion that (say) the BBC isn't mainstream enough (eh?) and because of the demand not that reliable sources say she did say these things (which they do) or that editors tend to agree they are significant (which they do) but that reliable sources be found to analyse the relative significance of Mensch's remarks - which isn't a requirement and of course is a conveniently difficult criterion to satisfy. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
It is not cited to BBC. SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
If that bothers you, add a cite to the BBC. You know as well as anyone else that she said it _on_ the BBC. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Just did. Here is the full interview, which is highly entertaining. Mensch is sort of a Milo Yiannopoulos character: not in demand in the UK, but embraced by partisan hacks in the US (Daily Kos asserts that she's "not a nutter"). Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Ladies and Gentlemen, I have tried to be clear -- the question before us is not whether Ms. Mensch said this or that. The question is whether we have RS that establish the noteworthiness of these statements and relevance to the story of her life and work. So adding the video of her saying this or that does not address the issue. What would support inclusion in the article is citing subsequent discussion to RS (such as bbc or any other mainstream journalism or notable analysts that stand up to WP RS criteria). Pulling up fringe, bloggy, and other marginal commentary -- even if overlinked with half a dozen in a row -- doesn't fit the bill. A primary source such as the BBC interview does confirm (as nobody disputed) that she said XYZ but it doesn't tell us whether these statements fit the many other tests we use to measure prospective WP and BLP content. SPECIFICO talk 12:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

And we've addressed that question, with a clear consensus between the other editors that have commented here that this material is entirely appropriate. Asking the question again won't get another answer.
You're also straying a bit off the BLPN topic here. The burning issue for BLPs is, is it _true_? There's no doubt about that. What you're now arguing is an ordinary content dispute (where the other editors who have commented seem to agree the material should be included).
I suppose I had better head the obvious response off at the pass by saying, yes, there are some cases where there could be a BLP issue with choosing to focus on an obscure view the subject holds, bringing it to unnecessary public attention. Donald Trump might hate kittens, but that's not a licence to open the lead on the page about him by describing him as a well-known kitten-hater.
... however, it is _not_ one of those cases when the subject has been willing to go onto the BBC and state the view themselves, or to write about it at length in a major national newspaper. The subject has already sought public attention for their view. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the test for a BLP is not "Is it true?" -- I will go to the BLP policy page and gather a few points that I'll bring here. No it's not an "ordinary content dispute" -- because we have a specific policy and Discretionary Sanctions on all BLP content here. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say that was "the test"; indeed I specifically mentioned another issue, which also doesn't apply here. It is an ordinary content dispute; you don't think this material is germane enough to include, everyone else does. Trying to dress it up in BLP terms ("we can't give the impression Mensch is someone who keeps coming up with unlikely conspiracy theories just because she keeps coming up with unlikely conspiracy theories") isn't convincing anyone. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Why not just let others speak for themselves, svp. SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorting this out[edit]

OK. The feminism bit has been endorsed here, and it's back in the article. The rather more problematic "conspiracy theory" aspersions -- which are very weakly sourced, now includes the silly interview on BBC telly in which Andrew Nell launches into a garbled barrage of misrepresentation and tabloid-style confrontation (playing to the gallery on set and at home) that Ms. Mensch spends the entire interview correcting and debunking. So this reference has recently been reinserted in a form which, if I understand correctly, is not in a form or with citations that address my concerns, acknowledged above by @Only in death: and @Ritchie333: with respect to "conspiracy theories." The BBC link recently added to "verify" the text actually does exactly the opposite, since nearly the entire colloquy is about the fact that Mensch was stating a personal opinion and never claimed to be reporting a fact to any journalistic standard. So it appears to me that @Pinkbeast: and @Guccisamsclub: have mot differentiated and reflected the concerns stated by various editors above with respect to the conspiracy bit. Finally, yes Pinkbeast, BLP issues are content issues in a sense. But they are not "ordinary" -- they're content issues that must meet the special BLP standard. This board does deal BLP content issues, not with behavioral issues as at ANI or AE. SPECIFICO talk 22:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Specifico, in the Andrew Neil interview she does say that she believes that murder allegation. She tweeted it, and she stands by it as a belief. SarahSV (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Right, but she's differentiating her belief as a blogger from her presentation or allegation of a fact as a journalist. The host tries to catch her up on this, but she keeps clarifying the point. Editors earlier in this thread have seemed to say that the BBC source is not sufficient to suggest that she has stated this is a "fact" -- and yet the fact bit, which she specifically rebuts in the cited BBC reference, is being reinserted repeatedly in the article. So it would be helpful to have third opinions on this. I find her distinction clear and reasonable, and the attempt to assert that she is a rabid believer in unverified tales is to my mind a BLP smear. I note the in-studio sneers and smirks as the the host turns away at the end. SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
"stated as fact" appears nowhere in the article. She "stated" it (based on "absolute belief") which is true enough. Guccisamsclub (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
It's a distinction without a difference. She said she believed it. Neil asked what the basis of the belief was. (Beliefs are cognitive; they have to be based on something, even if mistaken). She replied by asking him if he had a [religious] faith. He gave up at that point. If it's important to add that she simply believes it, then add that, but I can't see any reason to remove it entirely. SarahSV (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that Neil had her on his show for the purpose of disparaging her. And Neil's reputation for that kind of BLP-noncompliant infotainment is pretty well established. If this were a noteworthy part of Ms. Mensch's story, there would be numerous unimpeachable RS to verify the encyclopedic significance of it. In BLP's we don't just throw in everything a person has said, even every dumb thing someone's said. Check out the BLP's of other folks recently in the news. Do they all recount the unconfirmed views or uncorroborated opinions of Trump, Nader, or Jill Green? In fact the Trump article, just to take one that's fresh, has only one or two of his many conspiracy theories in the WP article. And it's not as if Ms. Mensch is like, e.g. G. Edward Griffin is notable primarily for conspiracy theories. SPECIFICO talk 00:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
It was an extraordinary thing to say, and Neil gave her the opportunity to repudiate it. Instead, she dug in, clearly standing by it. She then went further with the "temporary superpower" thing. There's nothing to indicate that Neil had her on solely to denigrate her. But regardless, he listened while she explained herself. She is the source here; this is an authoritative primary source. SarahSV (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I meant to add: what do you mean by "Neil's reputation for that kind of BLP-noncompliant infotainment is pretty well established"? SarahSV (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
He is known for stirring controversy, at least in his telly incarnation. But, what makes you think it's DUE WEIGHT in the context of Ms. Mensch's life and career? And what makes you reject the concerns stated by 2 editors above as to whether she is asserting fact in a journalistic role or whether she is offering conjecture in her blogging role (for which she's been acknowledged to have had good judgment in various cases where later developments have borne her out?). SPECIFICO talk 01:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Unless things have changed drastically since I last checked, Neil is known for excellent journalism, certainly in his earlier role as editor of The Sunday Times. And no matter the interviewer, Mensch is the source. I don't accept the "journalist v blogger hat" argument. SarahSV (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. And what is your view as to DUE WEIGHT / cherrypicking issue for the Breitbart bit (not covered by any first rate secondary RS) in the context of her life and work and of the same issue with respect to others who may have voiced "conspiracy theories" but are not primarily known for that? SPECIFICO talk 01:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The weight looks fine to me. The Andrew Neil/BBC interview is a first-rate primary and secondary source. I don't know how to compare it to other articles, and it's pointless to do that, because context is everything. She appears to want to establish herself as a journalist, and now she has said those things, so that is a pretty big deal. SarahSV (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't know how familiar you are with her work, but that Breitbart bit was not a significant part of her work as a journalist. There are many other aspects to her journalistic career that have been covered in secondary RS and that have been published by independent reputable publications. That Breitbart was picked by Neil to disparage her and she boomeranged him and his smirking employees on BBC. Neil's work is tabloid at best, like one of the lesser Fox News characters in the USA, imo. Serious interviews don't have a chortling studio audience to mock a woman interviewee. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] At any rate thanks for sharing. I do appreciate your responses. SPECIFICO talk 02:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Thank you, SV. I am going to work on adding better sourced content to the article. SPECIFICO talk 16:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

While your at it, you may want to consider that a BLP exception to edit warring is pretty clearly not a justification when the edit war concerns fairly minor grammatical changes of comparatively little consequence. There's nothing in this thread as far as I can tell to the effect that the difference between "promote" and "put forth" is of earth-shattering BLP importance. TimothyJosephWood 19:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I was harassed with an "edit war" talk thread and repeated aspersions here. There were not 4+ such "minor grammatical changes" -- I presume you don't want to sign on to the baseless aspersions, so please review the facts and reconsider your words here. Meanwhile, on a matter of more importance, we continue to see marginal sourcing added to the article, this time "Business Insider" has been added to bolster previous claims cited to "Daily Beast" and other such sources. If the text is a valid representation of the mainstream view of Ms. Mensch, there will be ample unimpeachable sourcing available. That's a better course to go, particularly where the BLP has attracted POV political overtones on this and other pages relating to Ms. Mensch. SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I presume you don't want to sign on to the baseless aspersions, so please review the facts and reconsider your words here. Oh Christ. Get off it. Go open an RfC maybe. And how about we close this, and stop trying to discuss the article in so many different places no one can follow what's going on. TimothyJosephWood 15:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The Edit War continues[edit]

@Timothyjosephwood, SlimVirgin, Pinkbeast, Only in death, James J. Lambden, Anthonyhcole, and SPECIFICO: edit was again reverted, this time by Anthonyhcole. Anthony asked me to justify my edit, which I did here on talk. I answered Anthonyhcoles' summary on the talk page; SPECIFICO's objection to my edit wasn't substantive IMO (I explained that also on the talk page). Given the battleground behavior on the page, I feel I have no recourse but to request a humanitarian intervention from BLPN. Please review the edit, read the [| talk page], and state your opinion about the proposed edit. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: this diff, it's best to stick closely to what Mensch herself has said, so "Mensch has said that she believes ..." and "Mensch stated that President Obama should have ..." are better.
As for "promoting" versus "putting forth", there's barely a difference, but she is (as I understand it) the original source not simply a promoter, so "putting forth" is more accurate. And it's not her political commentary that is being criticized, it's her, so "Mensch has been criticized for putting forth ...". SarahSV (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
While this editor has restarted the talk here, could some friendly soul warn him not to be making personal comments, not to call BLP reverts of misrepresentation and smears "edit war" and not to ignore all the editors here who previously explained to him their concern that the article not misrepresent the "belief" statement, per Mensch's own explanation. I mean, it's a bit odd for him to come here and think that he could enlist others to help bludgeon the two editors who are trying to improve the article by conforming it to the sources. SPECIFICO talk 00:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • SPEC says "some friendly soul warn him not to be making personal comments" and then immediately launches a personal attack. What a joke. Guccisamsclub (talk)

I take SarahSV's and User:Guccisamsclub's point on the distinction between promote and put forward.

Mensch has made it clear her view on the deaths of Breitbart and RT's founder is a belief, and statement of belief is different from statement of objective truth, so we should go with her word.

I'll return to the article's talk page for the rest. Later. I'm going out. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole:Mensch has made it clear her view on the deaths of Breitbart and RT's founder is a belief. Please read this: "Louise Mensch claims she has evidence that the founder of Breitbart was murdered by Russian agents." She said a lot of things about it, and there is no reason to stress that this is her "belief". There is nothing wrong with just saying she stated "stated" it: it's accurate, neutral, and succinct. It may seem like a non-issue and it is. The only reason we are arguing about it is that SPECIFICO made it an issue, for no good reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guccisamsclub (talk • contribs) 07:45, 5 April 2017(UTC)
It's great that we're down to make fairly nuanced arguments about what is a fairly nuanced epistemic distinction made by the subject of the article. But simply using the word "believe" in the article is in no way whatsoever going to convey that nuance. If it is somehow vitally important that that distinction be made, you're going to have to include the whole quote: I believe that to be the case – about the murder of Andrew Brietbart’. I believe it. You said I reported it – those are two completely different things. TimothyJosephWood 12:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
This distinction arose early in this BLPN thread and then came to the fore when Guci added Andrew Neil's attempted TV takedown of Ms. Mensch to buttress the weak citation for this bit. I continue to think that the Breitbart death bit is UNDUE, because it's not received broad coverage anything near what's been got by her other work. SPECIFICO talk 12:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
This is getting annoying. On what planet are Independent and the BBC "weak"? On what planet is a brief mention (literally a sentence fragment) the subject's own words, covered in numerous RS (on top of the BBC and Independent, if you can be bothered to read any of them) "UNDUE"? This is one of the more salient bits in the whole bio. If this is "undue", so is everything else in the article. Your complaint is utterly baseless and has gotten absolutely no traction, so just drop the WP:STICK will you. Guccisamsclub (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  1. I'm not sure it's really necessary to ping all of Wikipedia repeatedly.
  2. The paragraph is getting into WP:CITATIONOVERKILL territory, which is usually a sign that an editor is trying a bit too hard, for example, to justify wording that may more easily be summarized instead of dissected in intimate detail.
  3. I have no problem with TRS as a source itself. Per the discussion on talk, we're not really evaluating the reliability of Tabbi so much as we are the reliability of TRS. Presumably there is sufficient editorial oversite that whatever it was he wrote, it's been evaluated and TRS was comfortable putting their name on it. If not, then it probably doesn't meet WP:RS anyway and the point is moot, but I don't see a serious argument that TRS is not in fact an RS.
  4. Mensch has also falsely accused... is getting a little bit into the weeds, and its not really clear it's relevant to an encyclopedic understand over and above a blanket statement on conspiracy theories. TimothyJosephWood 14:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, citekill was genuinely necessary because SPEC complained that the content was not widely-covered or notable, and has repeatedly tried to delete it on that basis. We can drop "falsely", readers can make up their own mind as to whether Bernie Sanders et al. are secret GRU agents. Repeated pinging was intended to get a consensus one way or the other,as quickly as possible. I got pretty tired of this of the back-forth with SPEC. Guccisamsclub (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Methinks this thread needs to close, and someone needs to draft an RfC. Including user talks, the article is being discussed in so many places it's impossible to follow. TimothyJosephWood 15:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
No RfC will permit BLP violations, that's just not how we work here. Here's another example of a bad source -- in which Ms. Mensch is mentioned in the most incidental an casual way by a publication with spotty editorial practices -- being piled into the article to associate Mensch with unrelated persons alleged to be nutballs and fruits. [9] SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
This is the edit SPECIFICO deems to be a "BLP violation" (just because). Ms. Mensch is mentioned in the most incidental an casual way by a publication with spotty editorial practices -- being piled into the article to associate Mensch with unrelated persons alleged to be nutballs and fruits. I have no idea what you're talking about. Is Mensch's twitter account run by her namesakes/doubles? Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, the BI source is trivial passing mention, but the Rolling Stone piece is basically an entire exposé on her. TimothyJosephWood 18:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Right. I'm trying to point out the problem here. It's the use of the BI cite to impugn Ms. Mensch. The Rolling Sotne bit is not a good BLP publication or author for that opinion piece, IMO. And the twitter cherrypicks could be done on nearly any twitter user and that kind of sourcing doesn't work for WP, certainly not for BLPs. Good content will have abundant strong sources. SPECIFICO talk 23:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Leave it in. As said above, the idea that there are BLP violations here is one that SPECIFICO has come up with (no matter how many other users agree there isn't). What we have is a content dispute; Timothyjosephwood's suggestion of an RfC is an excellent one. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Just as a random comment, this type of situation, while very complex to handle solely under BLP, seems the type of thing that WP:RECENTISM warns about doing. As the person is still living, and the events relatively recent, it should not be WP's goal to try to document all these nitty gritty details about certain views or the like at this time, even if there's clear weight of RS to support BLP inclusion; years down the road, if they are still relevant as determined by sources then, then they can be added. But to me a lot of the mess here is because "oh, it was in the news, we have to include it!!" (whether valid under BLP or not). From the long-term viewpoint, why are the comments of everything in the "Commentary on the 2016 U.S. Presidential election" section necessary? There may be a few things to note, but this overall style is violating WP:NOT#NEWS, which if removed would readily clear up the complex BLP issues. --MASEM (t) 18:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
That's thoughtful and on-point. However enduring her intelligence-related journalism/punditry may ultimately be, this is a person who's notable for her achievements as an MP and an author, and content related to those achievements is well-sourced and presented. SPECIFICO talk 02:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Timmy Tan might be poorly sourced, because I cannot find that much information about him.[edit]

In this page link- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Timmy_Tan, there seems to be gibberish information that seems to be poorly sourced, update: I removed the poorly sourced information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PattyDay (talk • contribs)

Bharat Aggarwal[edit]

People are expressing personal opinions and "no source" or poor source to write this article. The comments on talk page regarding retirement, for example by "Zefr" shows some kind of personal vendetta to defame the living person, and not coming from any source cited. Either this page has to deleted or corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CDAF:CEB0:495D:3E45:63E0:13BE (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
....Uh, I see only | one edit from you on Wikipedia under this Ip address, and none on the page of Bharat Aggarwal. Zefr | appears to be attempting to insert sourced facts into the article, and there's at least one person (who I won't name, due to potential outing ] who appears to be doing the exact opposite. Also, this appears to have been discussed before on this board in October, again, I won't post the link, (potential outing) but at that time, it was essentially the same discussion with consensus that the contested text, which appears to be the same thing, was ok because it was sourced reliably.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  20:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

In a statement, M.D. Anderson subsequently confirmed to the Chronicle that Aggarwal had retired - this ref being used to support this passage - a position from which he resigned under pressure in 2015 due to allegations of fraud in his research. - doesn't say anything about him resigning under pressure or that it was fraud.
A cancer researcher who recently retired from MD Anderson Cancer Center
This week, the Houston Chronicle covered Aggarwal’s retirement and retractions...
The now-retired Aggarwal
Bharat Aggarwal, an MD Anderson Cancer Center researcher who retired at the end of 2015.
Aggarwal is no longer working at MD Anderson, according to a statement we just received from the institution: Bharat B. Aggarwal retired from MD Anderson Cancer Center on December 31, 2015. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
[| this reference ] which states "A prominent Houston scientist under investigation by M.D. Anderson Cancer Center for alleged manipulation of research data left the center weeks before another journal found fault with the validity of his studies. (emphasis mine ) actually states as much. Houston Chronicle is valid, and backs up the claim that's being made. It's valid, Zefr's edit is fine, and we have an SPA (not you, Isaidnoway) attemptiong to wash that out of the article.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  21:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
There is actually a reference (#14) being used in the article that states it outright - officials confirmed this week that they are reviewing herb investigator Bharat Aggarwal's studies after the federal government notified them of allegations of fraud by academic whistle-blowers - This source makes it clear and would support that assertion. The part that says he resigned under pressure in 2015 is not currently supported by any reliable sources used in the article and in the career section it explicitly states - MD Anderson Cancer Center confirmed to Retraction Watch that Aggarwal retired from the institute on December 31, 2015. If there are sources that state he resigned under pressure - those should be included to support that claim. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the link to the Houston Chronicle may back up Zefr's edit, problem is, it's behind a paywall and without access, we can't see the rest of the story. Zefr may be able to shed some light on this for us, pinging him now to see if he has access behind that paywall.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  14:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

John Searle[edit]

Professor John R. Searle has recently had allegations made against him for sexual misconduct. Given the policy: WP:BLPCRIME that "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured" I don't think that it is appropriate to include the allegations in his biography. Outside of academia, Searle is "relatively unknown." Currently the article has a single paragraph and an editor stating in the talk that he intends to expand the mention. I don't think it should be a part of the article at all as he is relatively unknown. Should the case against him develop further such that he is found guilty, sure, that may be worth inclusion. As the case stands now, it is just an allegation against a relatively unknown person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixelpix (talk • contribs) 05:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Mixelpix is a user who has been editing since 2013, yet made very few edits until very recently. He apparently has little experience here, and it is thus not surprising that he would misunderstand policy. "Relatively unknown" means that someone isn't known as important for any reason and has little public profile; that is certainly not true of Searle. Mixelpix has misunderstood "relatively unknown" to mean "not known by most people", a ridiculous interpretation to place on the policy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: FreeKnowledgeCreators post is nothing more than a personal attack and also a straw man argument. My editing history is completely irrelevant, as is the inclusion of allegations in the biography which user: FreeKnowledgeCreator has yet to justify. I have asked this editor (who has a long history of making his opinion known on wikipedia) to please stop misusing wikipedia as a gossip column. It is a fact that Searle is relatively unknown outside of academia. It is a fact that the only reason Searle is mentioned in news articles where the allegations are mentioned is in relation to and the context of the institution which employs him. It is the case that the inclusion of the sexual misconduct allegations have not one iota of relevance to Searle's biography and, per the policy stated above, inclusion of the allegations without any further developments in the legal case do nothing more than cast aspersion upon the character of subject of the biography article. This aspersion seems to be the explicit intent of user as he not only does not justify the inclusion, he does not justify or demonstrate his claim that "Searle is a well known person" : FreeKnowledgeCreator. Mixelpix (talk) 07:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Whether Searle is "relatively unknown outside of academia" is irrelevant. WP:BLPCRIME does not suggest that being "relatively unknown outside of academia" is a reason for excluding material suggesting that someone committed a crime. Rather it states that, "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured." Searle's being known in academia, as established at length in the article about him, is enough to show that he is not "relatively unknown". Mixelpix has shown repeatedly that he does not understand the policy he has invoked, and he appears to have no interest in understanding it. His assertion "It is the case that the inclusion of the sexual misconduct allegations have not one iota of relevance to Searle's biography", is a because-I-say-so type statement that is not worth arguing with. Mixelpix, you should try looking at other biographies, such as Thomas Pogge, to see how things are done on Wikipedia. You might save yourself a lot of trouble that way. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
To give an example of just how confused Mixelpix is, here's one of his comments from Talk:John Searle, "He is by no means "well known" even among the ~40% of Americans who have a college degree and much less the entire world." How does Mixelpix suppose that Searle's not being well known among people in the entire world is relevant? Probably no one is well known by that standard. To think that most people in the entire world have to be aware of someone's existence for them to not be "relatively unknown" by the standards of WP:BLPCRIME is the most ludicrous interpretation that could possibly be placed on it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • As a pair of fresh eyes offering a neutral POV, I must agree that regardless the subject's level of recognition, his notability is thus that his inclusion was warranted here at WP. That should stand alone for his being known. Second, the LA Times should suffice for its claim to be sourced reliably. However, what I might raise an issue with - since it is so early in the allegations / investigation - much of the content is still "hearsay"; and the sources (such as Buzzfeed) are not that reliable. In fact, as an editor, I steer away from Buzzfeed altogether for this very reason. To me, there are certain lines that seem "stacked" in a tabloid sense presently, and should only be mentioned once proven to be true (second paragraph almost doesn't belong). I would provide consensus to scale back the section - at least for now. But it should remain; as it looks as though it's not going away. However, a "current news" header on the section might be necessary. Maineartists (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Another fresh pair of eyes: I don't see how he could be considered "relatively unknown". The coverage of the accusations against him should be treated with extreme care and be verified by high-quality sources per BLP, which appears to be the case. The only thing I see is that the first section of the article after the lede is the "Biography" section that contains a very large "Politics" subsection and the "Sexual harassment allegations" subsection. This places a great deal of weight on the allegations (and his political opinions and activity), weight that's rather undue on the allegations. I was expecting to see a subsection about the allegations at the end of the article, after the many things he's notable for. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Terry Bean[edit]

Due to a particularly persistant IP and other editors in the past, this article is under a sustained attempt to exaggerate/over emphasise past legal issues. Some editors want to skew the article to imply the subjects criminal guilt (when charges were dropped due to the alleged 'victim' refusing to testify). The current focus being to shoehorn in reference to a $250,000 'payoff', that from reading the sources (news organisations engaging in tabloid journalism for the most part) was rejected (in order to settle the case - the 'victim' refused to testify anyway). Essentially even if we did include mention of the proposed settlement, we would also have to include all the details about it, vastly inflating what is otherwise a minor issue in someones biography. More eyes appreciated. This has also been to ANI where the IP has been told to drop the stick, however stick still seems to be firmly grasped. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Per reliable reporting, "In addition to the $225,000, Bean agreed to never contact the boy and to undergo testing for sexually transmitted diseases at a clinic chosen by the boy's attorney, Lori Deveny, and provide the results to Deveny." The judge rejected Bean's settlement offer,[10] and after the alleged victim declined to testify, the judge dismissed the case but refused Bean's request that future prosecution be barred.[11]. In view of these simple facts, it seems odd to completely exclude them from the BLP, especially given that the BLP includes an extensive quote from Bean about how exonerated he feels.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Jaromir Jagr[edit]

Jaromir Jagr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Edit warring/ongoing vandalism of Jagr's personal details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.219.203 (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

luke jackson[edit]

someone has changed Luke Jackson's employment information from Northwest Christian University to Portland State University citing an article that speculates that he would be offered a position at Portland State and accept it. In fact he has not been offered or accepted a position and remains employed at Northwest Christian University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.229.224 (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Kendra Haste[edit]

Could someone have a look at the use of reference (3) on this page - it seems to me like giant overkill but it's a consequence of a recent edit war, in which I was a protagonist. Please fix - will be sincerely grateful. MarkDask 00:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not see how using that source violates BLP policy in any way, markdask. Can you please clarify? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the swift reply Cullen - btw I was the one supplied the ref initially. . Ironically it was the 20 uses of this ref (3) brought the war to an end. It was applied by an admin who separated me and A.N. Other who had been warring. I came here seeking an independent perspective as to whether or not the ref needed to be applied in every instance. Such use seems excessive to me - detracts from readability - how many articles have 20 uses of the same ref? I aint trying to prolong the war - that's over - I simply want to cleanup the page. Thanks again. MarkDask 01:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea how using a named reference 20 times is any sort of problem at all, assuming that the reference is comprehensive and reliable. I brought Harry Yount to Good article status, and used one reference 23 times. Granted, that is not a BLP but I see no BLP issues with using a reference 20 times. What is the readability issue? Letters of the alphabet? That is routine and standard. I fail to see any problem with it, markdask. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Cullen - I'll leave it as is Face-smile.svg. MarkDask 13:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Everyone thinks they're the protagonist in an edit war. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Phil Cornwell[edit]

A lot of tinkering with this, with unsourced information added by multiple accounts, regarding a divorce and multiple children. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the talk page to back it up. 2600:1000:B07B:6D68:9C90:E333:8C18:4731 (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed the poorly referenced content about a former spouse and children. When there is disagreement about, for example, the number of children based on poor quality sources, the content must be removed until references to high quality sources are furnished. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Cullen328. Of course, the information has been restored, without sources. I can continue edit warring over this, but I'd prefer if someone can remove the content and protect the page. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Sergiu Celibidache[edit]

Maestro Sergiu Celibidache has been dead for some time. However, an IP editor has been adding derogatory remarks about parties to a lawsuit against him who are still alive, as here. Semi-protection might be in order. William Avery (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected 3 weeks. Thanks. Neutralitytalk 20:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
The IP's also adding spurious vandalism warnings to anyone who reverts them and abuse on William Avery's talk page. Not BLP but maybe worth an admin taking a look? Pinkbeast (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=774671935"