Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Collect (talk | contribs) at 14:08, 10 February 2016 (→Paul Atherton: some do not actually say much at all). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

Additional notes:

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

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Nicholas Schorsch

Nicholas Schorsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The wikipedia article seems to include everything up to June 2014, when in October 29, 2014, his company American Realty Capital, reported accounting errors that had been previously covered up in q2 2014 10-q. His company has since fractured, he has been rumored to be investigated by the FBI, the SEC and the State of Massachusetts for everything regarding the accounting scandal to allegations concerning proxy voter manipulation. He had a lot of his other non work related positions tarnished, and has had to close down his business. This article only shows the Nick Schorsch everyone in the industry knew of before the bombshells dropped. Its a less extreme example of only writing a wikipedia article on Bernie Madoff that only goes up to June 2008.

Brian Martin

Brian Martin (professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looking at this article I found one example where the statements in the article reflected the source content inaccurately, to the denigration of the professionality of the subject. I deleted and started a section on the talk page. Diff 1 Then I found another. Diff 2 And now I've found 2 more. "He has been (xxxxxcenscored) for his support of Michael Primero, whose PhD thesis alleged the Rockefeller Foundation had declared a war on consciousness through the imposition of musical tuning standards, his defence of Andrew Wakefield, who lost his medical license due to research fraud and ethical violations" Both of these statements are not supported by the sources cited.

I have not checked the rest of the article. Nor have I ID'd the editor/s involved.

I AGF however am aware that the subject of the article is a professor with a recent anti-vaccination PhD student. He describes some of the attacks in "Mobbing of a PhD student: lessons and responsibilities"

I would go DE but do not have access to a acceptable account. I am out of time. Inaccurate and negative statements are currently in the BLP article. 124.171.109.96 (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Brian_Martin_%28professor%29&type=revision&diff=703277965&oldid=701688766
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Brian_Martin_%28professor%29&type=revision&diff=703284326&oldid=703282593
3. http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/16mobbing.html

I've been watching things unfold with the Brian Martin (professor) article, and wrote this a day or two ago, and hope it helps...

This article is quite derogatory about Martin himself, and his work, yet this is not based on strong evidence. It seems to be mainly based on slanted views of a WP:SPA editor. I would think the article, and Talk page, contravene WP:BLP.

More clarification and context on Martin's publishing record is needed to better examine this situation, but details of Martin's key publications have been removed from the page several times: , .

Despite what is being said in this WP article, Martin has published many peer-reviewed journal articles. But, yes, he does publish widely in a diverse range of publication outlets, as many academics do. The article is portraying Martin as an activist, but to me he is just an "interdisciplinary academic" working in the area of "science and technology studies (STS)." He is a full professor employed full-time at a major university.

There is an amazing amount of criticism of Martin in the second paragraph of the article, relating to Michael Primero, Andrew Wakefield, and Judith Wilyman. Yet, material about Martins' STS professorial colleagues, Mark Diesendorf, Ian Lowe and Jim Falk has been removed from the article with little discussion. Johnfos (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Not that amazing. An academic going into bat for Wakefield is sticking his neck out big time, given that Wakefield's fraudulent studies with their concealed conflicts of interest and unethical unapproved tests on children caused a resurgence in a deadly and highly infectious disease. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Negative, yes, but not inaccurate. He has a history of misidentifying cranks as whistleblowers, and his supervision of the Wilyman PhD calls into question his fitness to supervise further PhDs, as that document used confirmation bias and conspiracist thinking in place of actual evidence. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Strong words, but without any supporting references. This is reflective of the poorly sourced derogatory material in the WP article itself. Thankfully, a recent paper by Martin helps to clarify his position and some basic issues: "On the suppression of vaccination dissent", Science and Engineering Ethics. 2015 Feb 21(1):143-57, where Martin says:

• • "Dissent is a disagreement with or challenge to standard views ... and in practice scientific dissent remains risky."
  • "... the existence of suppression of dissent, does not necessarily mean dissenters are correct."
  • "The vaccination debate can be incredibly emotional on both sides."
  • "My own involvement in the vaccination debate is primarily as a defender of fair and open debate on contenious issues, given my long term interest in dissent. Personally, I do not have strong views about vaccination."

This type of material would provide more context and clarification, and I don't see why it is being excluded from Martin's WP article. Johnfos (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

1. IP 24.171.109.96 listed this article on this BLP discussion page, an IP editor. I suggest the *Brian Martin* entry on this BLP page here be removed as this seems IP 24.171.109.96's disagreement dressed up as a BLP issue.

2. As quoted above, Martin's supporters agree that Martin prides himself in dissent. In this context the article as it stands would be seen as mostly flattery not "denigration". Martin is an academic who encourages non-violent rebellion and as such "both notable and tres cool" according to his fans - talk page.

3. IP 24.171.109.96 obviously has not read the sources and claiming an "inaccurate reflection of source" is misrepresentation and a false reflection by this IP editor - talk page.

4. IP 124.171.109.96 removed the content on page she didn't like, and it was promptly reverted or re-entered by a senior WP admin.

5. IP 24.171.109.96 has stated "legal consequences" (against WP?) on talk page. OK!

6. She also states "Nor have I ID'd the editor/s involved", so does she intend to 'out' the identity of editors of article? Concerning.

Gongwool (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the IP has a point that the sourcing definitely needs improvement as it doesn't actually well support the statements in the article very well. For example the first source mentions the student and what he did, but doesn't actually say he was criticised for it or anything similar. The reason why the journalist included it is obviously because the journalist felt it was another controversial student, but this is never stated. The second ref is even worse. It doesn't even say Martin defended Wakefield. It only mentions the aforementioned student was connected to Wakefield. Actually the only part where it directly connects Martin and Wakefield is where it says Martin said he wasn't aware of the connection between the student and Wakefield. Note although it mentions the student and his connection to Wakefield, it doesn't actually say Martin was criticised for it (perhaps it implies it by giving Martin's defence that he wasn't aware of the connection between Wakefield and the student). Nil Einne (talk) 07:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I made the changes as requested by the IP just prior to your additional criticism after the fact. You may try and fix any inaccuracies you think in the para, but try not to whitewash it as there is a level of chameleon type nature to the subject that can't go unsaid, and the critical mainstream media reports about Martin's PhD supervision topic are now possibly over 20 articles. I think we're making progress from the original position of the IP wanted simply to return it to a puff peice as the IP ed would have preferred. If Martin would prefer to have the article removed he needs to say so, but I doubt it will return to it's puff-peice status, that would be improper. Gongwool (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The article still says he was criticised for his support for Wakefield, despite the fact the source doesn't say he supported Wakefield (so obviously can't say he was criticised for it). Note the IP's complain was left on the 4th February and it's now the 9th and whatever else they may or may not have wanted, they had a point that the statements in the article don't seem to be supported by the cited sources which is something explicitly required by BLP regardless of how many criticial sources there may be. Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a small problem here in that Martin actually did support Wakefield (e.g. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11948-014-9530-3) and actually was criticised for it. I suspect that someone has switched or removed a reference at some point. We do need to eb vigilant here as both this article and the Wilyman PhD article are very likely to attract antivax activists. A negative overall tone in the Martin article is more or less inevitable given his continuing support for the bullshit OPV-AIDS hypothesis and his ongoing apologia for antivaxers. People who play a part in protecting deadly diseases against eradication do tend to come in for a bit of stick. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Support for Wakefield; Drafting submissions for AVN;

- http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/01/14/brian-martin-and-judy-wilyman-promoting-antivaccine-pseudoscience-as-dissent/

- http://luckylosing.com/2012/06/07/wollongong-uni-dr-brian-martin-judy-wilyman-how-far-is-too-far/

- http://luckylosing.com/2011/11/11/wakefield-innocent-deer-lied-earth-flat/

Gongwool (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Archives

I (just now!) noticed an odd edit to one of my user talk archives from 2007 . Note that the edit summary is "(rm as per this section of WP:BLP)". Looking at the contribution history for that IP address, it entirely consists of going around in September-November 2007 removing all references to that incident from archives of places like ANI, Wikiproject talk pages, and user talk pages, with that edit summary.

I don't quite see what bothered the IP about those archived conversations. I'm tempted to restore it to at least my talk archives, as I like having complete archives. I also feel it's important to restore it to the ANI archive. However, if it really is a BLP violation, it obviously shouldn't be restored, and should probably be oversighted from all those places.

I guess I've got two questions:

1. Does anyone else see the BLP problem that the IP editor apparently saw in 2007?
2. Should archives, especially of official business like ANI, remain unchanged?

~ ONUnicornproblem solving 21:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving it deleted not for WP:BLP reasons (although the attempt to ascribe a motive to someone is not the best move) but for an attempted WP:OUTING. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you think it should be oversighted? Removed from page histories? Because none of those archives are particularly visible to begin with, but if you know where to look it's all still there. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 15:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

To be honest if that was the standard for oversight, then all of the SPI and COIN archives would have to be oversighted. And they have not done anything about this so I cant imagine its a problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

ameritopia (mark levin)

footnote 31 is simply a hate-filled reference that does not approach an objective review of the subject book. how did this get included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:c0:8001:d050:ec70:8c60:dfa6:57f5 (talk)

Presumably, by being written by a distinguished professor of philosophy and contributor to the Chronicle OfHigher Education, among the more notable sources for discussion of books of this sort.MarkBernstein (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Carsen Gray- CONSTANT HORRIBLE EDITS MADE TO HER BIO

Hi there. I joined Misplaced Pages to fix the ongoing terrible edits of one Carmalita100 to my daughter Carsen Grays biography. she is expecting her first child and this woman I believe to be named... writes terrible things about her. I don't know why as she does not know my daughter but I have had enough. It is out of control. She defames her on every social media site possible any my daughter has never met her. please remove my daughters biography as I cannot figure out how to remove the bio or I would have done it already. Thank you.

Mamafixit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamafixit (talk • contribs) 05:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I am Carsens mother and I would like to have her bio removed from Misplaced Pages as soon as possible. There is constant defamation and horrible entries made by a Carmalita100. I would remove the bio myself but cannot. I loined Misplaced Pages just to stop the constant horrible edits.m Please remove it as soon as possible and you might consider removing the offending user from your site. Thank you. Mamafixit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamafixit (talk • contribs) 05:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The editor who added the "information" has now been permanently blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. The article has been nominated for deletion and will probably be removed in a few days. It can't just be deleted on the spot -- Misplaced Pages is very bureaucratic in the way even simple things are done. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Carsen Gray

Hi there. I wrote a report regarding the deliberate sabotage of Carsen Grays bio. I want this page removed. I am her mother and the constant sabotage is causing her stress. She is expecting her first child and the woman who keeps doing this to her page even wrote about her pregnancy on Misplaced Pages. Carsen has a right to live without this causing her worry when she has a child on the way. Carsen would like the page removed as well. As long as there is this woman carmalita100 continues to harass her on this site there is no point in having it. I am wondering why this woman is able to continue to use your site when she uses it for the wrong reasons. Please remove the biography and it is my sincere hope that you will figure out a way to deal with this user. Thank you

mamafixit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.235.71.16 (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I have started a deletion discussion on the article at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Carsen Gray. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Discussion combined with above section. Article deleted per discussion. "Dreams do come true, if only we wish hard enough." --GRuban (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Tyga

I am a little concerned by the sentence found under "4.1 legal issues" which states the following:

"Tyga was accused of pedophilia after direct messaging a 14 year old girl on the photo sharing social network Instagram."

The article that is referenced does not make mention of any allegations of pedophilia, nor do any other news articles I found about the incident. The article was simply stating that Tyga had been messaging a 14 year old girl via Instagram who he thought was 17 years of age - leaked messages show that she told him she was 17 not 14. I believe it is quite slanderous to have such an allegation on his Wiki page. Maybe we could change it to what can actually be shown in the reference, something like:

"In January 2016, a 14 year-old girl stated she felt "feel uncomfortable" after Tyga repeatedly messaged him via the social network Instagram. According to his manager, Tyga wanted to FaceTime her to "talk business and see her sing" – while sitting in the studio with producers. Text messages obtained by TMZ show that the girl claimed to 17 years old, not 14."

References: http://www.teenvogue.com/story/tyga-dms-underage-teen-on-instagram http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3385152/Tyga-contacted-underage-teen-scout-record-label-told-17.html#ixzz3zTzBzljY http://thefix.ninemsn.com.au/2016/01/06/10/15/tyga-says-he-only-asked-14yearold-to-facetime-to-see-her-sing#8WQgZIjJjwP0lXHt.99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.68.151 (talk) 12:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• I have edited to remove the problematic statement, however its trivia sourced to the mail online and teen vogue. I have no objection if anyone wants to nuke the entire section. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Nuked without prejudice. --Malerooster (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. I was going to remove it myself if someone else hadn't. Meatsgains (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Bert Wollersheim

Could someone who reads German run an eye over the sources for Bert Wollersheim please? I've removed an unsourced section but I'm tempted to cut further. ϢereSpielChequers 12:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Smash it - the sources are highly tabloid journalism in nature, and some do not even support the claims asserted. "Rp-online" has lots of "celebrity stuff" and http://www.rp-online.de/kultur/buch/chicago-am-rhein-aid-1.2611696 , for example, is a book review which basically starts: "In the 70s, pimps and gamblers in Cologne committed more than 50,000 crimes each year. These small-time criminals were called "Kings of the ring" and are part of the folklore of Cologne." (simplified translation) and is used as the source for the claim "(Dusseldorf) where he worked as a barber for stars like Dieter Thomas Heck and Rex Gildo. This is also how he made his first encounters with red-light district patrons like Heinrich Schäfer." As the cite provides not a whit of support for the claim made, and is likely not WP:RS for any claims of fact at all, much less meeting the requirements of WP:BLP I think this entire BLP is likely to fail scrutiny. "Vox.de" also fails - it appears to be a TV station marketing "celebrity gossip and images" more than being a journalism site AFAICT. In short - the person may or may not be a major pimp, but WP:BLP requires far better sourcing than I found here (especially when one source has nothing remotely approaching the claim made it is used to support). Collect (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Collect, would you mind if we move this discussion to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bert Wollersheim? ϢereSpielChequers 19:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Lester Coleman

This article, about a man convicted of fraud, has been a trouble spot for years. It has repeatedly seen bouts of editing by sock puppets and SPAs (possibly all the same editor, but that can't be proven), with the effect of whitewashing the subject and inserting information not supportable by sources. Over the years a number of editors, including me, have kept watch on the article and stepped in to insist on rigorous adherence to Misplaced Pages's sourcing policies. Another such bout of editing is now under way, carried out by Sure Footed1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but this time it seems that I am the only editor paying attention. I reverted a mass of edits once, asking for changes to be made incrementally so they can be evaluated; the editor simply undid my revert and continued. Since I have a policy of never engaging in one-on-one edit wars, I don't feel that I can do any more without input from other editors. It would be a black mark for Misplaced Pages for this article to turn into a mass of unsourced information after all the effort that has gone into maintaining it. Looie496 (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Another editor has stepped in and reverted the SPAs additions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey. I asked for inputs, and I was responding to Looie496's comments, and some guy named JzG came in and reverted me, claiming I should talk on the talk page. I *was* talking on the talk page.

I'm sorry that there was a lot of problems on that page. The BLP subject was running a lot of sockpuppets, and he clearly has some issues. But that's not grounds for reverting me like that, when I was trying to communicate. Sure Footed1 (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

ps: I'm not a SPA.

Your intentions don't really matter. The point is that edits need to be made in small increments, allowing time after each edit to check its support by reliable published sources. When large numbers of edits are made all at once, it becomes nearly impossible to fix any that are problematic. In most articles that wouldn't be a serious issue, but this article has seen so much abuse over the years that it is essential to rigorously check everything. Looie496 (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE in the lede of Vladimir Putin

Are the following statements appropriate for the lede of Vladimir Putin:

However, the economic development of Russia experienced a significant setback due to Western sanctions imposed in response to the Russian intervention in Ukraine during Putin's third presidential term. The IMF has estimated that about half of the decline in GDP in 2015 was due to sanctions.

and

In 2014, Russia was suspended from the G8 group as a result of its annexation of Crimea.

I feel these are recentist and undue weight, and not directly related to Putin himself. As such I don't think they are appropriate for the lede of a living person article. Athenean (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Not clear on how this is suppose to be a BLP issue. Regardless of whether one thinks this should be in the lede or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Well technically I suppose blaming a living person for the downfall of a countries economy would be a violation if untrue. I am pretty sure given Putin's control over Russia, no one else is to blame for Russia having sanctions, and sources can be provided, so I dont see how it is undue in his biography. His BLP is to have all the significant events in *his* life, and causing the economic downturn of an entire country probably counts as significant. Maybe not lead material though. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

That text may be appropriate for the body of the article but seems to me to be WP:UNDUE weight to have them in the lead.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Remove it from the lead, if for no other reason than that the article is waaaaay too big, and anything questionable needs to be cut. I once spent quite a lot of time cutting that article back to size, but I'll let someone else do the honors this time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The article's lede spends a lot of text talking about the economic successes under Putin during the 1999-2008 period. Somehow that's not UNDUE, even though it's way outdated. So how is putting in info about more recent developments UNDUE? Honestly, it seems like the only reason this info is being removed is because it's negative, whereas the info about the earlier period is being kept because it's positive and some editors seem to think that the whole article should be panegyric to Putin.

And one more time, how is this a BLP issue? There's absolutely nothing strange or undue about describing the performance of an economy that a particular country's leader is in charge of.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

If the lede spends a lot of text talking about the economic successes under Putin, then that should be cut back too. The article is huuuuuge. It may not be a BLP issue, but I'm just saying that it's way too long.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh I agree that the article - and its lede - are wayyyyy too long. But this is actually not one of the things that should be cut. There's plenty other "fat" that can be trimmed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• This is clearlynot a BLP issue, but simply a cosmetic question. An article about Putin that does not explain the political and economic consequences of his policies would be simply a joke. Putin's article has long looked like a joke written by his propagandists, but if remove this the joke is entirely on us.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Very much agree -- and since someone has restored some of the propaganda, I've restored the paragraph questioned here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Maunus Your point is well taken. However, I don't think anyone here is advocating the removal of the sentences in question. It just needs to be better positioned to avoid any such concerns of undue weight. The lead of the article is being used to personify an image or characteristic of Putin that is very recent in nature and undue. One clear-cut example of this is the fact that there is little talk of the annexation of Crimea itself in the lead (the version I am talking about is this). However, all we get in the lead is the West's reaction to that event. As if the West's condemnation is more important than the annexation itself. Meanwhile, that piece of information about the G8 summit was not even part of the body of the article. In other words, the bit about Russia getting kicked out of the G8 was placed deliberately in the lead, and the lead only, as an apparent attempt to place the international condemnation of his actions vis-à-vis Ukraine in the spotlight. That's indeed very concerning. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to add my 2p again, if his economic impact is in the lede I dont see how it needs to be more than a one sentence 'Putin is credited with both upturns and downturns of the russian economy' (example, it could be worded better). Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I do agree that it needs to be kept short, but it also needs to be a bit more informative than that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Putin is credited with both the upturn and the later downturn of the russian economy, which occurred early and late during his leadership of the country, respectively.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Problem is that that's not entirely true. Many sources credit the upturn on high oil prices which was not of Putin's doing. And many sources credit the downturn on BOTH low oil prices and Putin's economic and foreign policy, which *is* of Putin's doing. Even as we try to keep it succinct we still need to follow sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

There's some pretty naked POV-pushing going on in this article. NPOV requires that we not give an unbalanced portrayal of these matters. I have therefore removed the entire paragraph. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Here are relevant questions: (a) do multiple RS credit Putin with political and economic successes by Russia in the past, and (b) do they blame Putin of current international failures, including the political isolation and the economic crisis in Russia? If they do, this is not a BLP violation, but something that must be noted per WP:NPOV. From what I read, the answer to (a) is "no" (the "successes" were simply due to high oil and gas prices), but the answer to (b) is "yes" (this is not only a result of the currently low oil prices, but also of his personal disasterous political decisions, such as war in Donbass, annexation of Crimea, "counter-sanctions" in Russia, and so on, and so on.). Fixing introduction accordingly would be fine, however simply removing this info goes against WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Edward Furlong

Edward Furlong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've collapsed this discussion because it is TLDR, is wrapped in concerns about behavioral issues which are not the purview of BLPN, is primarily a spat between two involved editors and lastly is disrupting the flow of business here on this noticeboard. Please take your discussion to another more appropriate forum. For more information see: WP:DR and WP:DRR. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

What a relief. I'm sure a collapse may dissuade yet more additions to this growing wall of text. Yes there are "concerns about behavioral issues", but I suspect posting into another noticeboard, such WP:DR or WP:DRR, might bounce back here, as it does seem to be a dispute about the relevance and WP:WEIGHT of biographical detail. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The disputed material was first brought to the article by Lx 121 in December 2013. Lx 121 was doing some revert-warring at various times in the 14 months since he showed up. The revert-warring behavior has always been related to BLP-sensitive material, since the actor Mr. Furlong comes into collision so often with the law or with community morals. Lx 121 was always trying to put more controversial information in, while others were pruning it out. I think we should be conservative with controversial BLP information, keeping a carefully neutral WP:TONE. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Gary Anandasangaree

Gary Anandasangaree

The following statement is inaccurate and libelous.

"However, LTTE supporters openly backed Anandasangaree's conservative opponent during the 2015 federal election campaign."

The reference is poorly sourced. It has no relevance to this biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bajan loch (talk • contribs) 20:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It's off topic info and I've removed it.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Doug Pruden

A poorly written autobiography. I've trimmed some of the unsourced personal history, and know there's a lot more that can be done here. Any assistance, and eyes on the article, would be appreciated. Looks like it's been 'owned' by the subject for many years. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the subject of the page has been protecting it as his WP:OWN. I'm in the process of cleaning it up. Meatsgains (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Meatsgains. The concern has been explained to Mr. Pruden. If the ownership issue continues I'll request page protection. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Why not fair use photos of living people for leads?

Can someone explain why we are unable to add a non-free image to a bio lead when a commons photo is not available, so long as the person is still alive?

I often come across articles of famous actors, such as Barbara Harris (actress) or Armand Assante, who lack an image because of that. It makes no sense, at least from a U.S. perspective, why a non-profit encyclopedia can't at least include a fair use image. The only rationale I could find is in Misplaced Pages:Non-free content:

Non-free content should not be used when a freely licensed file that serves the same purpose can reasonably be expected to be uploaded, as is the case for almost all portraits of living people.

However, that definition seems mostly useless for famous people:

• For one thing, it's not reasonable to expect an editor to take a photo of those kinds of people. We're not paparazzi, and WP should't expect that. We don't get paid.
• A retired actress like Harris has been inactive for 20 years. She's also 80. Is it even useful to have a photo of her when her prime career years were over 50 years ago? Is it a reasonable expectation to think a WP editor is going to track her down, invade her privacy (since she's no longer acting,) and take a photo, which wouldn't even add to the bio as being unrepresentative of her career look?
• WP was established and is still based in the U.S., which implies it should abide by U.S. copyright law. The U.S. has very clear fair use laws which would permit a non-profit encyclopedia using a non-free image. Those fair use laws don't require that person be dead before allowing us to use a non-free.
• The rationale that WP is stricter than U.S., therefore why someone in Bulgaria, for instance, shouldn't be allowed to view an online WP photo is unclear. We're not giving it to them. The non-free tags explain that it is non-free and can't be copied just because it came from WP. In fact the tag explains more than 99.99% of the images that anyone anywhere can copy from the web.
• And, FWIW, for publicity photos, copyright law in the U.S. is clear that rarely, if ever, were they even copyrighted and were actually intended to be free. Therefore allowing a fair use one would be more than reasonable.

If this issue is posted in wrong forum, let me know and I'll relocate it. Thanks. --Light show (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Even if you get 100% agreement with your views, it won't change policy, since WP:NFCCP isn't a Misplaced Pages policy but a Foundation resolution, so getting it changed would require a formal decision of the WMF Board. If you do want to try to get An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals removed from it, you'll need to go here and follow the "Contact the Board" instructions, but I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a reply; if anything, the Board would likely be more sympathetic to banning fair use altogether. ‑ Iridescent 22:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The resolution says "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. " My emphasis. Just to show that we have leeway here and editorial discretion might allow the use of fair use in some contexts where a photo cannot reasonably be expected to be uploaded.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The only case I have seen somewhat supported is the second bullet-point...what someone looked like long ago, as the notable timeframe. Essentially, the current-era free one (or potentially-creatable as of now) would not "serve the same encyclopediac purpose" compared to an old one that would be rationalized as "for purposes of identification of the subject" (based on the actual sources of notability). It's been kicked around from time to time on...probably WT:NFCC. But this hasn't been enshrined in any policy or guideline that I can find (but maybe some child-actors have been accepted as special cases by this reasonsing?). DMacks (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I know there were a couple of cases of 1970s punk bands where consensus was that their image was significant enough to justify illustration, and that the subculture of the time was one in which people were unlikely to have taken personal photos they'd release into the public domain, but that's something of a special case as what they looked like at a given time is such a significant part of the story. Certainly for Elvis Presley (who isn't even alive) the WMF ruled that fair use photos shouldn't be used since the number of people who saw him made it statistically too likely that there would be a potential free-use photo in circulation. (If you search Jimmy Wales's talk archives for "Elvis" you should find the original debate.) ‑ Iridescent 23:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Rola (model)

Please see this link to the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/Rola_(model) The details of the problems that I list below can be found in the link above.

According to Misplaced Pages’s policy of biographies of living persons, the paragraph addressing Rola’s Father’s Arrest violates the policy above and “must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page” for the following reasons:

1. It includes “contentious material about living persons” 2. The information is “potentially libelous” 3. The sources and citations for numbers 13, 14 and 17 are invalid. The link to the webpages do not work. 4. It does not adhere to the policy of “Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.” 5. I would also like to raise the point that this information has the “possibility of being harm(ful) to (living subjects) (and this) must (always) be considered when exercising editorial judgment.” 6. Because Rola is a public figure, there is a lot of information out there to include about her, but this incident about her father’s arrest is not relevant to her career and/or to her celebrity persona. In fact, her father’s arrest has nothing to do with her talent or what she is famous for.

This material about Rola’s Father’s Arrest has been repeatedly inserted back in, after numerous efforts of trying to delete the information, resulting in the page becoming semi-protected and unable to edit. Therefore, I have no choice but to report the issue. Please help to permanently remove this information from Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libera2016 (talk • contribs)

 Comment:: It should be pointed out that "Libera" is the management agency of Rola, so I think we should be wary of pandering to the agency's wishes to gloss over mentions of past "scandals" included in the article. Having said that, all of the details in the article about her father's arrest and prosecution in Japan are reliably sourced (archive links have now been added for the three deadlinks highlighted above, so they are all verifiable), as the story received extensive national media coverage in Japan. There's nothing contentious or libelous here, and the article text actually mentions how Rola's popularity and career was not ultimately affected by the incident. Also, I don't think it is accurate to say that her father's arrest is not relevant, since she made public statements and apologies about the incident. The only possible issue I can see with this article is whether too much space is devoted to the incident (i.e. whether this is WP:UNDUE), although I personally don't see it as excessive within the overall article, as it is proportional to the amount of media coverage it got at the time. --DAJF (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree in general about not letting COI editors have sway over the content. But this material is not sufficiently relevant to the subject of the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Only if the incident had a notable effect on her career and this effect has been covered by reliable mainstream sources (aka. not blogs, forums or internet "news"), a short mention in context of her career might be appropriate. But anything more is likely undue WP:WEIGHT, especially regarding BLP-relevant content which requires "sensitive" and "conservative" handling. The now-removed coverage was far too detailed. GermanJoe (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree: undue weight.TheTruth-2009 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how the removed paragraphs are relevant to the article as they are about her father and only mention Rola tangentially. Even part of the removed section states that the arrest had little or no effect on her career. That said, Libera2016 needs to be sure to follow the rules here. They were repeatedly warned here before creating their account, so there is no excuse for their edit warring. The smart thing to do would have been to immediately go to the talk page of the article and start a discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the paragraph as it is not relevant to the subject of the article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Von Miller

In Von Miller's High School bio it say's that he played with future Aggie teammate "Adolf Hitler"....Cyrus Gray

The vandalism, among some other inappropriate edits, we're reverted. Meatsgains (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Pierre_Bellanger

This edit by a non-English-language native added information about conviction for corruption of a minor, somehow involving a sister too, which seems to have some basis in fact. The amount of detail and the wording should be reviewed. I'm not familiar with exact standards and the sources are in French language. --doncram 20:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted the section. It's very poorly written and very derogatory information about a living person. If someone who speaks French would go an review the two "sources" for the alleged information, it may be that my edit should be reverted and the text copy-edited. But until then, it seems preferable to delete this material. David in DC (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Fletcher Mulnix

Fletcher Mulnix

Please remove! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muln5528 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The page was proposed for deletion here by me for lacking notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Paul Atherton

Anyone want to help clean up Paul Atherton and the relating articles? I came across this via a draft article, which had issues with tone and sourcing. Going from there to Atherton's article showed that there was some serious issues with tone and sourcing, since there's a reliance on places like IMDb and other sites that aren't entirely usable to establish notability or even be overly reliable. The puffery is my main concern, however, with statements like "As a passionate protector".

There are some film articles too, Colour Blind (2009 film) and Silent Voices (2005 film), that need to be checked for notability and tone as well. I'm particularly concerned that these may not pass notability guidelines. I'm going to try to work on these, but I have mid-terms to work on for class. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Horrid sourcing - mainly harmless but some of the cites appear to have essentially no encyclopedic information about the person at all. Collect (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution