Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

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.

---

Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

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

|- ! colspan="3" style="background: #CAE4FF; font-size: 110%; border: 1px lightgray solid; padding: 0.5rem;" |

Gamergate controversy (2)

Gamergate controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another link was redacted [1] from the Gamergate talk page with the stated reason that other articles on the site violate BLP, and while this article does not appear to, the redacting editor " didn't really want to have to trawl through the extensive comments" to confirm. [2]

Previously I asked [3] whether a BLP-violating article could be cited for its compliant, non-BLP material. That discussion has yet to reach a conclusion, partly it seems because my question is general and the answer depends on specifics. Here we have specifics - and they address an even broader question: can a BLP-complaint article be linked to, when the site hosting it contains BLP-violating material.

The answer is important whether or not the redacted article is usable since that question can't be asked without linking the article. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I've got some concerns with the comments below the article (namely those twitter screencaps), but the article itself seems okay to me. I guess the question becomes: do we bar all links from a given site if that site has a reputation for BLP violations? Not sure I have an answer to that, but that seems to be the thinking behind this link's removal. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir said it better than I did. That's exactly my question. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I thank both EncyclopediaBob and EvergreenFir for raising this question; I have now provided a policy based answer to EncyclopediaBob's question at WT:BLP.

In short, WP:BLP:

• relates to adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, and requires any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source. If we are not actually adding contentious material to Wikipedia there is no violation. As a logical consequence, sources do not inherently (in & of themselves) violate WP:BLP.
• does not contain anything which would prevent the use of a source (Per WP:V#Reliable_source, a triplet consisting of work, author, publisher) based on other works by the same author or publisher, or other sources hosted on the same website.
• does not support the redaction of links to sources from Talk pages, regardless of the content of the source. (As was done here[4]). Such links are explicitly permitted per WP:BLPTALK; as supported by an ArbCom consensus here[5], and the consensus at WT:BLP[6].

I thank EvergreenFir for their clear phrasing of the question. To directly answer, with a slight rephrasing :- No, we do not bar all links from a given site if that site has a reputation for BLP violationscontentious material about living persons.

As always, I appreciate & welcome any policy based, alternative opinions of other Wikipedians.

Note: I initiated and contributed to the discussion at WT:BLP. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I agree with Ryk72 on this. Unless the website is patently offensive and its mere mention in relation to another person potentially libelous (e.g., Stormfront), non-problematic pages from a problematic website are fine to link to in a talk page. But I would love to hear more opinions on this. Might start an RfC so we can hear more on it. Let me ping HJ Mitchell, Callanecc, and Future Perfect at Sunrise as they have enforced GG sanctions in the past and this topic is related to that. Specifically whether or not linking to a page on a site like gamergate [dot] me is a BLP violation, regardless of the content of the actual linked page. This is in relation to recent links by now-topic-banned Ghost Lorde. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Whether it's a BLP violation in and of itself is not a question a single admin can answer. But isn't that site user-generated? If that's correct, then I can't think of any good reason to be linking to it, especially if the site contains libellous material. As with most things, it's a matter of judgement, and whether it's sanctionable would be decided on a case-by-case basis at AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The possibility of using that particular site as an RS seems remote, but I believe it has potential as an WP:SPS for information about the movement. Is seems impossible however to discuss that broadly without risking redaction or even sanction. I'm curious as well if there's precedent (pre-Gamergate) for applying BLP to links of any kind (even libelous) on talk pages. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

There is zero potential for the site being used as an WP:SPS for its own article, we would require high-quality WP:BLP compliant sources for such an article, and that site would never pass muster. I'd suggest dropping this paper tiger before it gives you a paper cut. Dreadstar ☥ 23:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:V, articles must be based on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". At the same time, we should rarely use questionable sources, which "rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion". The question is whether a source with a reputation for publishing egregious gossip and opinion about living persons—the type of material that would be redacted as a BLP violation if used on Wikipedia, even on a Talk page?—can simultaneously have the opposite reputation about its other articles. I would argue that, in most cases, they cannot. Many well-known, otherwise reliable sources have opinion or gossip sections, but these are still under some sort of editorial control and are nonetheless clearly defined as opinion/gossip. That demarcation between news and editorial sections, as well as solid factual reporting, is what earns newspapers their reputation. (And Pulitzer Prizes.) With a source that fundamentally lacks such a reputation in the first place and has no clear distinction between fact and gossip—as evidenced by their other articles—we should consider everything published by that source as questionable. Woodroar (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we do need to bar all links from an attack site that contains BLP violations, even if the singular landing page itself doesn't contain BLP violations. Further, I question that a site which has content that violates BLP is being used or proposed to being used by editors as if it were a Reliable Source, when it clearly is not. Dreadstar ☥ 20:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dreadstar, many thanks for your thoughts on this matter; and also for your efforts as an Admin, they are greatly appreciated.

W.r.t this question, I think it's fair to say that our opinions considerably differ, but I accept that we are both proposing what we in good faith believe is best for the Wikipedia Project, and for the improvement of the encyclopedia.

To this end, I humbly suggest that the standard that you are proposing is not in the best interests of the Wikipedia Project, and will not lead to improvement of the encyclopedia. It will lead to suppression of good faith discussion of sources; suppression of good faith source-based discussion of article content; frustration of the consensus building process; and general all round un-WP:CIVIL behaviour. I would suggest that this is already occurring.

It may seem to be purely a question of semantics, but I again assert that as WP:BLP relates to adding information about living persons to Wikipedia that sources do not inherently (in & of themselves) violate WP:BLP. Regarding sources as containing BLP violations or violating BLP is a fundamental misapprehension of policy, which leads to its misapplication.

Questions that I, and I believe many other independent editors, have include, but are not limited to:

• How do we determine what is and what isn't a "reliable source" without discussion of that source? (Source as defined at WP:V: work, author, publisher triplet).
• How do we determine what is and is not an "attack page" or "attack site" without discussion of that page or site?
• How do we prevent POV-based determination of what is an "attack page" or "attack site"? (We have a hard enough time with POV-based determination of what is a reliable source).
• By extending the test across an entire website are we placing an undue burden on editors to vet not only the contents of a proposed source, but also (all?) other sources by the same author or publisher?
• Why must links be verboten? How does this directly benefit Wikipedia? (I respectfully suggest that the burden is on those desiring a stricter interpretation of WP:BLP to show how this benefits).
• Why is it not sufficient for other editors to simply respond to a proposed source with "Source would not seem to be reliable WP:V & WP:RS" or "Source contains contentious material about living persons WP:BLP; suggest we use alternative source X" or even "Proposed content seems WP:UNDUE; suggest that the article is better off without it". (Any of these is more collegial than redaction; more likely to promote discussion & consensus building).

In considering the implications across the whole of Wikipedia, not solely focused on a narrow range of contentious topics, I firmly believe that we are better as a project, and will build a better encyclopedia, if we allow discussion to occur, and consensus to form. I firmly believe that WP:5P (especially WP:NPOV), WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:BLP (as currently written) sufficiently protect Wikipedia from the implications of "contentious material about living persons" which is not reliably sourced. I believe that extending these as proposed is both unnecessary and detrimental to the project. I would only hope that sufficient editors are of a similar mind.

I again thank you for your efforts and dedication to the Wikipedia Project, and look forward to your thoughts, and to those of other Wikipedians. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me reiterate to you, if you link to an attack site with BLP violations, I will block you or anyone else who does so. Dreadstar ☥ 01:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:BADSITES failed. How/why are you acting contrary to WP:BLPTALK which is policy? Reopening closed discussions might qualify as tendentious but just pointing people offsite for background material or ideas is protected by policy. If Site X makes a statement about Jane Doe that could not be made on WP for BLP reasons, it's not blockable to point to it for discussion. The reason is simple: Jane Doe can point to the same site and expose it and it can often be the springboard for reliable sources to backup or refute the link content. The key for assessing it from WP's side is whether an editor is doing it out of malice or to improve or broaden the encyclopedia. It's quite a departure from AGF to presume a single link presented for discussion was malicious. Reverting or blocking without discussion is the larger abuse than just a link of unrepeated verbiage. There is currently no news site that doesn't contain information that WP would consider a BLP violation. This sounds more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT than any serious BLP concern. It's specious to throw out terms like libel for discussing a link. Wikipedia editors cannot commit libel by providing links so throwing that legal term out there has a chilling and threatening tone that is not conducive to editing per WP:NLT. --DHeyward (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll be a little more blunt. Boastful threats to block editors to prove a point contribute to the noise, not discussion, and if carried out would be an abuse of tools. Plenty of sites contain BLP violations. Discussing them outside of article space so as to improve the encyclopedia is what talk pages are all about. The Gamergate article space on Wikipedia, much less the world at large, won't be improved by decreasing the signal to noise ratio. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that any editor who posts a link to a web site that contains a BLP violation should be banned? Does that include CBS News? Because I can post such a link. And you can ban me. It would have nothing to do with Gamergate, but the freedom to discuss the reliability of a source should not be compromised. Honestly, I've had enough of this zero-tolerance atmosphere. If we as editors are not allowed to discuss the reliability of websites on Wikipedia, then WP:V is dead. And if WP:V is dead, then where is Wikipedia? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Steven Emerson - Part 3

Steven Emerson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Emerson has been criticized for some of his views, characterizing Emmerson as a discredited terrorism expert and an Islamophobe in The Cambridge Companion to American Islam, while Carl Enrst, the Kenan Distinguished Professor of Islamic studies at the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, described him as a prominent producer of Islamophobic discourse.

References

ChrisGualtieri is of the opinion that the material above is a violation of BLP, and claims that WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE applies here based on his argument that The claim is highly contentious, purely opinion, lacking veracity, decidedly non-neutral. I argue that this is not the case, and the opinions are significant enough to warrant inclusion, and that opinions need not to be neutral to be significant for inclusion: NPOV requires us to include such opinions.

This has been discussed extensively already at BLP/N:

• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive215#Steven_Emerson
• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive216#Steven_Emerson_part_2

While I appreciate the concern about "getting it right" in BLPs, I object the use of the BLP policy as a bludgeon used to exclude criticism from BLPs, when the criticism is supported by good quality sources, as this will violate NPOV - Cwobeel (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to repeatedly insert accusations of bigotry sourced to persons connected to an organization in protracted disputes with Steven Emerson. This is a highly contentious opinion sourced to less than a sentence which basically states "Islamophobe Steven Emerson" from a Google string search. Swap "Islamophobic" with "Anti-semite" or "racist" and you have the same BLP issue. Verifiability and veracity - not passing petty insults. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's entirely verifiable that Emerson has been criticised for some of his views, and the criticism has extended to the view that he has produced Islamophobic discourse. You appear not to like it, but it meets our policies quite readily. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

His views can be criticized but you do not go about calling someone a bigot on their biography without any merit and sourced to the personal enemies of the subject. This is why "misinformation expert" is fine, but not a bigot. You seem to be unable to reconcile the differences. Swap "Islamophobic" with "Anti-semite" - is it still appropriate? No. We do not go labeling or accusing people of being bigots when there is no evidence they are bigots. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's clarify something once and for all: Wikipedia (which I assume is what you mean when you use "we" above) is not calling anyone a bigot. What we are doing is reporting on criticism of Emerson as described in reliable sources. That is a big difference and a crucial distinction in this discussion. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You (CG) want "evidence", as if it had to be a fact. But haven't you also argued that being a "bigot" can only be a matter of someone's opinion? You can't have it both ways. What matters is whether it's a characterisation that is supported by reliable sources. There's no question that the sources meet WP:RS. (And no, it wouldn't be different if it was a characterisation of someone as an anti-Semite.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The text shown above is a fine example of a BLP-compliant, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV-compliant summary of what prominent views are held about Emerson. Many more sources agree with the evaluation, so the above text is arguably too weak, suggesting that only these two sources think Emerson is an Islamophobe. Binksternet (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There are additional sources that can be used to expand the sentence to address your concern, and even Emerson himself refers to the Islamophobe criticism leveled against him, rebutting that "[...] any criticism of Islam means you are an Islamophobe." [7]

References

- Cwobeel (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Seeing as there are 3 conversation about this subject now, if the content being discussed at the prior 2 is the same as here, I suggest WP:CLOSE closing procedures be used after this one concludes. Let all 3 be collectively reviewed and a consensus be determined based on them, Lest we open a 4th one here in a few more weeks.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I actually agree with Serialjoepsycho. Prior comments supported WP:BLP policy, and considered the addition in the lede to be noncompliant with NPOV: [8] and [9]. Also, WP is not a tabloid that needs to be updated each time a biased source says something derogatory about the subject. Emerson's gaffe was actually included in a section of its own in the body of the article. How many BLP-N discussions must we undergo considering this is the 3rd, and beginning to look like WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Atsme☯^Consult 21:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    • It doesn't look like forum shopping at all Atsme. What's clear from viewing some of the discussion elsewhere, some of you have interpreted a different consensus. So let who ever add what ever new, no one continue to repeat the same old, and then go seek an ADMIN Closure. They will determine the consensus based on what has been said.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Sounds like a plan to me, Serialjoepsycho. Atsme☯^Consult 02:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Note that this discussion is unrelated to the article's lede at this time. The dispute is about the validity of this material for it to be included in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Related? Unrelated? When your done go seek an official close is the relevant part of the above. If the other discussions about Steven Emerson are related point it out to the closer so they can take those views into account. If they aren't but since there seems to be some issue related to them seek to have them officially closed as well.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This is an expanded version, addressing concerns expressed by Binksternet, as well as including Emerson's attempt at rebuttal in a Fox News oped, for balance. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Emerson has been criticized for some of his views, characterizing him as a discredited terrorism expert and an Islamophobe in The Cambridge Companion to American Islam, while Carl Enrst, the Kenan Distinguished Professor of Islamic studies at the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, described him as a prominent producer of Islamophobic discourse. Emerson responded to these and similar characterizations in an op-ed for Fox News, stating that criticism of Islam labeled as Islamphophia, and the labeling of "Islamic terrorism" as a racist generalization of Muslims, is "one of the biggest and most dangerous national security frauds of the past 30 years."

References

Yes... I like the phrasing "responded to these and similar characterizations" as it gives the reader the correct sense that Emerson has a greater level of criticism than just one uninvolved scholarly book and one involved but respected scholar. Binksternet (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing much of an issue with this honestly, but I would like to view some some further comments, and well really get the meat and potatoes of the Issue that Chris has with this. Has this particularly already been discussed?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It has been discussed extensively (follow the other discussions here at BLP/N, liked above). The issue ChrisGualtiery has with it, is summarized in his comment to my talk page [10] The claim is highly contentious, purely opinion, lacking veracity, decidedly non-neutral and sourced to nothing more than half a sentence quip. There is no place for unsupported accusations of bigotry. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Honestly that diff provides no context. The only bit of discussion I've actually looked at specifically was related o the lead and you have expressly stated that this material here relates in no way to the lead. There are probably a few things change, but in principal I don't not see an issue with mentioning these views if by prominent individuals. I do find myself questioning who in context to, "Emerson has been criticized for some of his views, characterizing him as a discredited terrorism expert and an Islamophobe in The Cambridge Companion to American Islam" because it doesn't seem Enrst is the person behind this point of view. It actually seems that we are attributing this opinion to Cambridge University thru their press. Probably not the best Idea. I wonder if the views can be attributed to the editors of it or specifically to someone the editors interviewed while writing the book. But really I'd like to hear I'd like to hear more from others to really get a view of this dispute to get a little more context.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that bigotry and/or hate speech doesn't belong in the lead. It is not the prevailing view, rather it is a biased minority view and should not be given WP:UNDUE. I'm not convinced that it improves the article and is actually reminiscent of tabloid journalism. The public's perception of how proponents of Islam feel about Emerson is obvious considering the COI and/or bias toward him and his line of work. Also, several important comments are missing from this discussion as a result of separating it into 3 parts. Where are the opposing views, including what ChrisGualtieri and others stated in Parts 1 & 2? Atsme☯^Consult 19:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd absolutely agree that it would be inadvisable to put that in the lead like that at this time, but above Cwobeel has specifically stated that this conversation doesn't relate to the lead at this moment. As for the other parts, that is why I suggested that an official close be sought and related discussion all be closed as one. If there are any points contextually that you feel would help here please provide diffs and link them. Please though attempt to be brief.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If the discussion is not about inclusion in the lead, then most certainly include it in the body of the article. I have no problem with that at all. Atsme☯^Consult 20:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate to wait for an admin to close this discussion "officially". Admins are not here to be arbitrators for content disputes (I don't see any mention of an admin role in WP:DR besides conduct disputes, neither I see that in WP:ADMIN). We should be able to handle the close by ourselves with the kind assistance of uninvolved editors. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate to do anything but follow the procedure at WP:CLOSE. Because you have already been unable to close yourself. I recommend a admin closure just to avoid any unneeded drama in relation to a non-admin closure. It can be a non-admin closure by an uninvolved editor that is prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale if asked. But regardless it does need to be formally closed and that is the whole point. And I know the perfect place to seek an uninvolved party to assist in the closure, WP:ANRFC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. ANRFC is for cases in which there is no clear consensus. And as far as I can see from this discussion, there is consensus for inclusion, as consensus does not imply unanimity. So, in this case we don't need admin help. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Oklahoma City bombing

The Emerson biography should say that Emerson screwed up in his guess of who bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City. Why is that not in the biography? Many authors bring it up when they mention Emerson.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] Even Emerson acknowledges his mistake as a personal "albatross".[22] Apparently, Atsme doesn't think it worthy of the biography, which is astonishing. It's a prominent part of his career which everybody including Emerson agrees upon. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't just "his guess" - that should be clear because local police and the FBI also specifically considered Islamic terrorism. Reports surfaced almost immediately following and Emerson was one who agreed it had the hallmark. He made the statement, but he isn't the origin of the claim. The gaff itself has been used against Emerson and it is appropriate to include it - as well as the context surrounding it. Though in the big scheme of things - its sorta lame as "the biggest error" they refer to for him, but it is what it is. Political drama is like toilet writings for me - but I disagree with Atsme only because it is too prevalent to omit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

This should have never been removed. This should be put back in as neutrally as possible.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes it should have, and the reason follows. The misleading comment Binksternet made about me is not unlike the misleading comment he wants included in the Emerson BLP...both are misleading and factually incorrect. Per my edit summary: removed poorly written paragraph stating that Emerson was "labeled an Islamophobe" based on incorrectly stated, unverifiable opinion. Emerson never mentioned Muslims. BLP violation) Binks, I'm curious - you removed an entire section I included in IPT (which is inextricably linked to Emerson and mirrors much of the same info) with the following summary: (→‎Boston Marathon Bombing: delete section... this issue is of very little importance in the case. The videos posted by the two bombers were little seen. The IPT did nothing substantial here.) [23]. And now you think a 20 year old interview on CBS wherein he only suggested that the bombing had a Middle Eastern trait is important? I think the Boston bombing is far more important because (1) it's recent, and (2) Emerson was doing his job which is what we're supposed to write about. Now what could be the difference between the two that makes you think a 20 year old brief interview is so almighty important...let's see...could it be that with the Ok City bombing Emerson suggested a ME trait when it was actually homegrown terrorism, and with the Boston bombing it was Islamic terrorism and Emerson was correct? Interesting angle on NPOV. Atsme☯^Consult 23:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point, but that is not what we do in WP. We don't bring our own opinions, rather, we report what reliable sources say. Adding your own commentary to somehow dismiss or diminish the RSs provided, as you have done (see Talk:Steven_Emerson#SYNTH), is a violation of WP:SYNTH. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I did not bring my opinion in. I provided an inline citation for my source, and the source said precisely what I stated in the article (no copyvio) which is actually what we do on WP. The SYNTH and POV is what was in the passage I modified to be policy compliant. Do I need to include that whole ball of yarn here with inline text attribution for each phrase? I hope not. Atsme☯^Consult 01:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel doesn't understand the point you make Atsme. This is clear because his use of "reliable source" here translates to - the biased non-neutral assessment by a political think-tank which Emerson has been in conflict with for decade and that it uses a quote fragment and a lack of context to attack Emerson personally. I mean sure... the Wall Street Journal to the New York Post were going on about the Middle East trait, live coverage well-before Emerson was already hard pounding the WTC and Islamic terrorism angle. CNN identified four innocent Arab Americans in connection with the bombing.... Emerson also criticized CNN for this act... yet it is "Emerson the Islamophobe"? American Journalism Review is better source than Emerson's personal enemies. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel blocked

So Cwobeel was just blocked for violating WP:NEWBLPBAN, which is a method I had never seen. ChrisGualtieri filed a case against Cwobeel at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cwobeel, then HJ Mitchell read the case and blocked Cwobeel. The immediate complaint was that Cwobeel restored disputed text to the Emerson biography during this discussion here at BLPN, the text in question described as a BLP violation by ChrisGualierie and Atsme. My problem with the Arb case and the block stems from the persistent mischaracterization of the text as being a violation of BLP. The sources are scholarly ones, the highest quality sources we have. Yes, they characterize Steven Emerson and Daniel Pipes as being the two most prominent voices of Islamophobia in the US. It doesn't particularly matter whether Emerson is happy with this assessment or not; the description accurately represents the opinion of these (and some other) scholars.

If we are to institute a rule disallowing any re-posting of BLPN disputed material (no matter how highly sourced the text or how misrepresented the complaint) then we will open ourselves up to those who would game the system: any I-don't-like-it text can be perpetually discussed at BLPN to keep it from being re-posted at a biography. That's a change I would not like to see. Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Half a sentence quips from parties involved in a dispute with Emerson is not "scholarly" by any means - it is name calling. The real issue is repeatedly edit warring to reinsert the material which is at BLPN when there is no consensus to include the material is the problem. And you have done this yourself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Your original research does not take the place of reliable sources, and Arbcom can not (nor do I believe they intended to) set a higher standard for BLPs than established by the community. What I see is editors tendentiously pushing their own POV by using BLP as club to keep legitimate criticism out of articles in violation WP:NPOV. I think this discussion needs to happen at ANI.- MrX 17:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue was restoring content removed under BLP, acknowledged by Cwobeel to be valid and then restored during the dispute. Citing Gale was me and the American Journalism Review was Atsme's source - and the information is not "original research". OR pertains to article content, not highlighting that Cwobeel's source was non-neutral, cherry-picked and unsupported name-calling. By this logic, it would be fine to include racist and bigoted "scholarly criticism" on Obama's page. Sorry bud, but BLP needs to have high standards. I've seen this same stuff directed at Al Sharpton calling him every vile nasty epithet you can think of, but yet we do not include such filth either. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP requires good sources, not neutral sources. Cwobeel added well-sourced content here based on 3:1 support at BLP/N here. You ignored that consensus and reverted Cwobeel's edit here claiming "Remove per BLP Policy". BLP Policy requires good sourcing, the absence of which you have flatly failed to demonstrate. I've seen you do this repeatedly on this and other articles such as Shooting of Michael Brown. I would like to know why you haven't been sanctioned.- MrX 18:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'd have thought it would be common sense for any established editor to know that you don't restore content removed on BLP grounds until and unless the discussion concludes in your favour, much less an editor who has previously been blocked for BLP violations. I have no comment on the content; whether or not it should be in the article and if so in what form is a matter for discussion on this board to resolve. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @HJ Mitchell: I don't think it's going to be possible to address this one properly without evaluating the content. The question is whether there are reasonable grounds for disputing it on a BLP basis. ChrisGualtieri and Atsme think so, and they've been arguing about it for months. Multiple editors coming to it "cold", however, have reached a different conclusion and have added/restored the material (sometimes in revised form). In that context, "content removed on BLP grounds" means something different, in contrast to a situation where someone sees a BLP violation and removes it the first time. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Evaluating the content is absolutely critical to understanding whether this was or was not a BLP concern. Otherwise any editor could block any negative text at all from a BLP, just by complaining about it here at BLPN. Binksternet (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Harry, at least look at the fact the Cwobeel's edit had 3:1 support and was well-sourced. There is a fundamental problem when a single editor can stonewall by simply crying BLP without showing that the cited sources fail our reliable source guidelines or that the content is not supported by the sources. Please see Consensus-building pitfalls and errors.- MrX 18:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

So @Atsme: is a non-person? The content evaluate is separate, but the offending material should not be restored by the BLPN filing party while the dispute is ongoing at BLPN. You made a false dichromy argument because no one is saying negative material is a problem. It is name-calling that is the issue here, and name-calling is not encyclopedic or productive and its not in the Gale biography. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Your issue seems to be with the fact that Emerson as been characterized as an Islamaphobe or a prominent producer of Islamophobic discourse, a fact which he acknowledges. Several editors clearly disagree with you that it's not encyclopedic.- MrX 19:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding contentious material to a BLP that is verifiable but false or that is unsupported by the cited RS is quite simply noncompliant with NPOV. Sources that mirror each others' bigotry may be RS for a particular claim, but in this case, one of the sources included only a parenthetical reference to Emerson in an unrelated chapter in a book containing fewer than three sentences about the guy. Another source did not even include what was actually stated in the BLP. Since NPOV is one of the 3 core content policies of WP:BLP, and the contentious material is clearly noncompliant with NPOV, how is that not a BLP violation? Furthermore, Binksternet made 4 reverts in less than 24 hours: 21:22, March 6, 2015 21:46, March 6, 2015‎ 08:29, March 7, 2015‎ 09:14, March 7, 2015‎ which not only violates 3RR, it appears to have violated BLP DS. Atsme☯^Consult 18:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You appear not to understand how WP:3RR works. Try to understand the notion of consecutive edits. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Verifiability is a foundational policy, and sources are how we evaluate "truth". If you want to challenge content as being unsourced, then do so with diffs and a link to the source. Binksternet did not violate 3RR; concurrent edits don't count as reverts.- MrX 19:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Refer to the evaluation by HJ Mitchell above because Binksternet reverted the same material that caused Cwobeel to be blocked. Edit warring is edit warring and when it involves contentious material about a BLP that is not properly sourced, it requires immediate attention. The revert happened so quickly it became a job in itself just to keep up. I don't understand why the same action that applied to Cwobeel should not apply to Binksternet per BLP DS. There are substantive grounds for removal of that contentious material. Furthermore, closure requires a close review based on the substantive argument, not a vote to see how many editors agree despite BLP policy. Atsme☯^Consult 22:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Several editors restoring content is one of the signals of consensus. If only one editor supported this content and reverted without discussion, they should be sanctioned for edit warring. What instead seems to be happening is filibustering, original research, strained interpretations of policy and appeals to non-existent policies. Also, BLP/N discussions do not require formal closure.

Now a specific question for you: What exactly in the disputed content do you claim is not properly sourced? - MrX 22:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of brevity I've included a classic example of the NPOV issue at Emerson:

• [24]<--factually accurate information in a published transcript (pg 11) of the actual 1995 CBS interview with Emerson as indicated by an academic source. Another source I was going to cite (had I not been disrupted from editing) is a NY Times article: [25]
• [26]<--example of the misinformation Binksternet insisted on keeping, and in doing so prevented me from completing the last segment of the paragraph. The reverted passage reflects an unsubstantiated bigoted opinion (and biased slur) that was expressed parenthetically (in passing mention). COI - several authors of the cited book are paid proponents and/or teachers of Islamic studies at various universities. The passing mention of Emerson in the book was clearly incidental. The source demonstrates how Emerson's statement was taken out of context: [27] Atsme☯^Consult 01:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It's heartening that you would try to figure out whether the scholars are correct or not in their negative assessment of Emerson, but frankly that is not our concern, and it smacks of original research. The scholars looked at Emerson's contribution to the issue and they determined that Emerson was expressing Islamophobic ideas. Let's not try to second-guess these scholars who we accept as experts in their fields. Binksternet (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Except WP:OR - does not apply to talk pages so pointing out that the quote is incomplete and inaccurate is acceptable. Wikipedia is not supposed to engage in conflicts and label people as bigots based on the quips of their political and ideological opponents. Not one case has been presented to show Emerson as an actual bigot. It is rhetoric and name-calling, all without merit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

What is an "actual bigot"? Who is to judge what behavior deserves that label? Why, the reliable sources are to judge, and if we are concerned about BLP (we certainly are) then we must use the highest quality sources. Scholars are our highest sources. Let's not try and out-think the scholars in their areas of expertise. Binksternet (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Mmmm? ABC, CBS, and NBC which had FBI sources on the day of stating this connection. Oliver Revell (not Emerson) stated that it was most likely a Middle East terrorist which appeared in the Baltimore Sun. Plenty of figures made this connection, the Wall Street Journal even ran a story featuring it. Emerson's award winning documentary was released several months prior and apparently he wasn't a "Islamophobe" for predicting such an attack and of such a style. Your use of the word "Scholar" as some unimpeachable standard is pretty telling that you have no experience in such research... I am also very confident you have not watched the tapes and while I do not have access to the Hillmann & Carr collection (containing the tape of Emerson) I have found many instances of the "Middle Eastern" aspect including Emerson condemning the identification of four innocent Arabs by the media shortly thereafter. So much for "bigotry", but keep sticking to your non-neutral sources and claiming it to be the gospel - I take the New York Times, American Journal Review and the FBI over those sources. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

@Atsme: You answered a different question than the one I asked. This section is about the material inserted by Cwobeel for which he was blocked for violating WP:BLP. So I ask again, what specific words, phrases or sentences in this edit do you assert is not properly sourced?- MrX 17:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Resolution attempt

Due to Binksternet's reinsertion and modification, it is not the same offending text that Cwobeel was edit warring. But we need to resolve this. Let's begin by finding some points of discussion to resolve the dispute. Let's break the section down:

Emerson has been criticized for espousing Islamophobic views...

Specifically, what "views" are Islamophobic? This requires clarification and none of the sources being used support a single example. Three different sources are saying he is an Islamophobe, but none provide any argument or example of said Islamophobia. I see verification that an accusation has been made, but this is an exceptional claim and requires exceptional sourcing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

If the slightly different way I worded it is not a BLP violation, how is it that you insisted on Cwobeel getting blocked, when the solution was simply a bit of rewording? It seems to me that you could have suggested some rewording at the article's talk page and thereby saved the community's time along with their patience. Or you could have reworded it yourself instead of blanking good sources.[28][29][30][31][32] Not to mention striving to get an editor blocked for no good reason. Binksternet (talk) 06:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I think there is a core misunderstanding here. Cwobeel edit warred over the content, took it here, edit warred it in, month long protection, added it again, took it here, added it again after acknowledging the "restore part of BLP" and doing it during the dispute which has been requested to have a formal close. So I took it to AE to stop this and also asked for 1RR on the page. You reinserted it, but you did it once and while I and Atsme disagree, edit warring is not productive and its not a top-tier BLP issue. I even asked Atsme to let it stay because we need to more forward. If I undo the material you reinserted and modified - I'd be continuing to stall the situation. You weren't even warned of the AC/DS, but this has got to stop and be resolved. I don't think anyone wants this dispute to continue for another month so can we focus on the issue with the content now? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Chris makes a good point. It shouldn't be enough to just report that some individual has called Emerson a name. If someone has, do they have reason for that position? Otherwise there would be undue weight it seems. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• This demonstrates it is both notable and due for this "terrorism expert's" biography. It goes into extensive explanation but obviously you are not going to just present one "side". So, you all should move on and get with exactly how you present it in the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no issue with including the 1995 "gaffe" material and everyone agrees that it needs to be include. Despite WP:BLPSELFPUB objects as it is "self-serving" by one user - Emerson's statements and other sources about this need to be given. The issue here is name-calling, specifically labeling Emerson as a bigot without identifying what specific views of his are "Islamophobic" or "fomenting Islamophobia" as previously claims. Verification of the name-calling is WP:UNDUE without at least a single argument as to why Emerson is Islamophobic in the eyes of his critics. That's the core issue we have been trying to resolve for weeks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The sources do talk about why they say what they say. Perhaps not to your satisfaction but that is another matter entirely. "Islamaphobe" is not in the sources only an epithet, it is a critique of his expert approach, which the critics see as revealed by him. They may be right, they may be wrong but in discussing the biography of a terrorism expert, you have to discuss the "albatross" around his neck, which leads to the "islamaphobe" critique. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

So by the logic Obama it is acceptable to call a communist/radical/worst president in history because "critics state" and nothing more? You seem to think I am sympathetic to Emerson because I don't think allowing unexplained bigotry in retaliation for labeling their organization as being related to a terror organization - a fact backed by a federal judge's ruling in the case. By that logic you could call George Zimmerman a racist and a murderer because "critics say". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

What? No. I don't think anything about you, except now I think you indulge in irrelevancies. I think the sources show there is a prominent critique of this terrorism expert. Your swerve to irrelevant Obama commentary notwithstanding, Emerson is not Obama, two very different biographies of two very different lives, which will have very different demands of subject matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

If it's acceptable in one BLP, it is acceptable in all BLPs. We cannot pick and choose whose BLP we allow contentious material to be included. Please be specific in your argument to keep a contentious statement because if it applies here, it is likely to apply elsewhere - it's referred to as establishing a "precedent". Atsme☯^Consult 20:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect, no one covers disparate lives the same -- only those who seek to indulge logical fallacies of a pretend parade of horribles would even attempt such reasoning. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want to argue about Obama, start a section about Obama. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

This subsection title is Resolution attempt. Can we please stay on topic? Thank you. Atsme☯^Consult 20:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course. That's why we would do well not to discuss Obama. Agreed? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Chris correctly drew attention to an established precedent. [33] Attempts to dismiss the comparisons only serve to make it more relevant. Established policies are just that - established policies which means they apply across the board and are not subject to POV. If compliance with NPOV applies to one BLP, it applies to all BLPs. Atsme☯^Consult 22:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

No - there is no precedent, despite your logical fallacy -- we are dealing, here, with terrorism expert, Emerson, who has this sourcing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

No, we are dealing with a BLP, and as such strict adherence to policy is required. Strict adherence to BLP policy includes the 3 core content policies, no exceptions. Any attempt to individualize BLP is not NPOV. Atsme☯^Consult 22:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

And multiple editors note that all policies are met, the critique is verifiable and due. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Please be definitive. What passages are you referring to as having met the requirements for NPOV, and how did you determine the requirements were met? Atsme☯^Consult 22:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Mr. X has a proposal he has asked you to comment upon already. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Mr. X asked a question that was already answered by ChrisGualtieri. I see no reason to keep repeating the same thing over and over again. This subsection is titled Resolution attempt, so if you have any suggestions for resolving the NPOV and RS issues, I'm interested. Atsme☯^Consult 00:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well then your done, here, if you have nothing left to say and others can just move on with the consensus version, which does not require unanimity. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Mary-Jean O'Doherty

Can I have some more eyes on this article and a second opinion. I am on my second revert and will not revert again.

RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk · contribs) with a long history of warnings for adding unsourced or poorly sourced dates of birth to BLPs, has been repeatedly adding an exact DoB to Mary-Jean O'Doherty with no source, although she has claimed on my talk page, that she got it from this web page. That page is from a website that is based in Russia, is not the official Eurovision website, and uses information "gathered from fans around the world". It is not a reliable source for a biography of a living person. I can find no other source for this date and it appears in none of her official biographies. There is also the issue of privacy in including a full DoB, especially a potentially spurious one. Voceditenore (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a no-brainer - if there is a dispute about a DoB or the reliability of its sourcing, we leave it out.--ukexpat (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It may need to be noted that per a previous discussion at WikiProject Eurovision, it was found that the ESCKaz website that Voceditenore linked to above, had been found to also be in violation of copyright from Wikipedia text (full discussion can be found here). And as a consequence the project placed ESCKaz on their project's banned sources list, and thus ESCkaz should not even be used as a verifiable source whatsoever. It should also be noted that I had reported RebeccaTheAwesomeXD to WP:ANI back in October 2014 (linked here) about similar disruptive behaviour, as well as the numerous warnings on her talk page - some of which she use threatening tactics in response to warnings; such as "Fear not, Wes! For I hate when certain articles get deleted." and childish remarks like "Oh no! I'm doomed! DOOMED! Sarah and Julia has been deleted. Some of Rebecca's contributions are perfect and reasonable. But others have caused more damage than good. I feel that Rebecca should either be faced with adoption tutorial from an experienced editor; or topic ban across BLP and Eurovision-related articles. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 21:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk · contribs) for 1 week for continued violations of the WP:BLP policy. I've also blocked 112.208.61.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which appears to have been used by her to evade scrutiny. I will consider further action as needed. CT Cooper · talk 17:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Despite the fact this block has now been put in place, it would appear that Rebecca has a pattern of adding or altering dates of birth on BLP articles for quite some time, and all of them being unsourced.

• Jesse Money diff 1
• Ula Ložar diff 2

Maybe a block isn't going to teach her anything about the seriousness of this kind of incident. Perhaps a topic ban on BLP articles is necessary? Her contributions on other articles are good, but when it comes to BLP's she just does what she wants and ignores all warnings from editors including admins. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 23:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a difficult one. I've given it some thought, and my conclusion for now is that competency issues are apparent here and it is therefore not likely that Rebecca will likely follow any complex sanctions imposed. I've decided to keep it simple for now and to keep blocking her until she understands that her current behaviour is unacceptable. I'll be reviewing the situation again before the block expires though. CT Cooper · talk 17:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Russell Tovey's "effeminate" comments

His comments are publicized, but are they worth being added to the article? --George Ho (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

No. They are an off the cuff comment, over blown by the tabloids. Next week they will be forgotten. --Fæ (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

They are not overblown off the cuff comments Fae, they actually have offended segments of the LGBT community and Tovey has a history of denigrating what he considers "flamboyant and camp". It's well known. --5.69.175.246 (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Tovey is a gay man prides himself on being "straight acting" and passing for a straight man. His comments clearly reflect this. It's also clear he is unconscious of why he makes such 'off the cuff' remarks in the first place, hence why they were highly publicized. They were harmful to those 'really effeminate' men within the LGBT community who consider him a role model and do not conform to the heteronormative standards of behaviour he speaks of and has spoken of in the past. For you to undermine the comments as 'overblown' is dismissive of their potential impact which is why I think you should consider keeping these comments in the article itself. --5.69.175.246 (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

There are some unreliable and/or primary sources there, lack of NPOV and a lot of weight. "came under fire on social media" is precisely the kind of thing we want to avoid. However, if there was reaction from reliable sources or notable people and a consequence of some sort, and all that can be sourced to stuff other than twitter, then perhaps it merits a shorter paragraph. Right now it looks like it was worded by an angry LGBT advocate, which is not ideal for a BLP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I have taken time to read the original interview (where the comment hardly is noticeable) and a few of the later inflammatory pieces in other tabloids. I have also gone to Tovey's twitter stream and read his immediate reactions. Though a few people might be wound up by a passing comment made during a long interview, I am still of the opinion that this is over-inflated as it does not properly illustrate Tovey's opinions on being a gay figure (as shown by his responses). I find no systematic evidence that Tovey "has a history" of denigrating flamboyant gay people; this may be confusing his fictional roles and his aims as an actor to take more edgy material with his personal world-view. As a co-founder of Wikimedia LGBT, I am sensitive to the issues but I think we should retain a focus on ensuring LGBT related articles are as a good quality as possible. This means avoiding compiling dubious "controversy" sections which have no long term encyclopaedic merit.

If anyone is looking for newspaper sources and wishes to research Tovey's BLP further, I do have access to LexisNexis and can pass on material to help with improving the article if you have specific areas to focus on. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Not a BLP issue. plenty of mostly reliable sources reporting it. If its worth being in the article discuss it on the talk page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Sherry Lansing

The Bio on Sherry Lansing claims she was the first Female Studio head. I believe that Lucille Ball was the First, after buying out Desi Arnez to become the presedent of desilu. Thank You Joseph C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.119.246.162 (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Desilu was a television studio rather than a movie studio.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

nomgqibelo ntombzakhe

nurses who treat their patients without care.nurses often get angry with patients when they asked to assist they are sometimes heart less with people it.s not our fault they dont enjoy their jobs for ill patients sometimes when you waiting for help they wont come to assist you and ask whats the issue even if the issue is serious they dont care — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.236.168.223 (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

How does this relate to Wikipedia? I can find no reference to anyone of that name in any of our articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Kamal Mehta

This is a short BLP stub about a Indian university head who is currently involved in a local scandal. He's not really A7 worthy, I wouldn't think, but I'm not sure he's truly notable beyond the current scandal. The stub appears to exist mostly because of the scandal. Maybe it's A10 worthy, maybe it can be cleaned up/expanded so that the scandal isn't the core of the article. I'm personally unsure of what to do with it, but I know that it's problematic as-is. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Given that the sources cited state that there are allegations, whereas our article claims that he is 'guilty', it is certainly problematic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Elie Wiesel

I think it's pretty clear what the issue is here. If you could just revert the article to how it appeared before the most recent edit I would appreciate it.

"Wiesel was born the 21st of Nyestember 0021 A.C.C, Franks Apartment (now Sighetu Marmației), Maramureș,[6] Romania,[6] in the Carpathian Mountains. His parents were Frank and Safari Man. At home Wiesel's family spoke Chromosomian most of the time, but also Chinese.[7][8] Wiesel's mother, Safari Man, was the daughter of Chin Chin, a celebrated Vizhnitz Hasid and farmer from a nearby village. Chin Chin was active and trusted within the community. In the early years of his life, Chin Chin had spent a few months in jail for having helped Polish Jews who escaped and were hungry.

Wiesel's father, Frank, instilled a strong sense of humanism in his son, encouraging him to learn Chromosomian and to read literature, whereas his mother encouraged him to study the Torah. Wiesel has said his father represented reason while his mother Sarah promoted faith.[9]

Wiesel had three siblings – older brothers Salamander man and B0ss, and younger brother Prometheus. B0ss and Salamander Man survived the war and were reunited with Wiesel at a French orphanage. They eventually emigrated to North America, with B0ss moving to Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Prometheus, Frank, and Safari Man survived the Lycra Holocaust the Holocaust."

I was just reading this article the other day and happen to know that his siblings names are not Salamander man and B0ss, and Chinese was not the language most spoken in his household. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.110.82 (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism - fixed. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Meredith Viera

Insults Meredith when talking about the Meredith Viera show, referring to her as a racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B843:4CE0:CD34:EE6A:91B1:E020 (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a link or diff? I see no evidence that the article has ever included such a claim. RolandR (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The OP is apparently referring to this edit, which you reverted. Dwpaul ^Talk 15:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

That was just a routine reversion of mindless vandalism. I didn't see any reference to racism. RolandR (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

An edit can be both vandalism and racist, RolandR. This one was. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Racist? Unless you are inside the editor's head, I don't think that's a fair assesment. Maybe the intent was there, but the edit in question was so incoherent it's best not to make such an accusation in the first place. The bar for making such claims against fellow editors appears to be about an inch high nowadays.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 03:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I characterized the edit, not the editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Ahmad Givens (recently deceased)

Ahmad Givens died a couple of weeks ago, apparently at age 33. One source does say 35 years old, but even its URL has the number 33 in it, which makes me think they know something we, and those other sources, don't. In addition, two single purpose accounts have tried to change it to 35, so there might be something to this. The article is Real Chance of Love, and Ahmad Givens is currently a redirect to the television show. Thanks. :> Eddymason (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Merwin Coad

Merwin Coad is my maternal biological grandfather, and my maternal biological grandmother, his second wife, was Carol Faye Farnsworth, not Peters.She is a relative of the inventor Philo T. Farnsworth, who designed and built the first all electronic working television system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.44.9.185 (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Denis Avey, British war hero

The autobiography by Denis Avey, The Man who Broke into Auschwitz, is undergoing some edit warring. Please see talk page regarding guidelines possibly being undermined. Other opinions would be useful.--Light show (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Jordis Unga

Hello! I've been dealing with a BLP sourcing issue on Jordis Unga, but before I violate the 3RR I decided to bring it here. It deals with this edit (and ones following it) where I have removed content from the page and an IP (98.193.95.34) has reverted my changes, I revert back, and then I reverted the revert, and the IP reverted back. That's where we stand at the time of this post. The controversy is about the subject of the article allegedly not carrying out her duties to her campaign on kickstarter, but the citation is the comment on the kickstarter campaign, which only contains comments made by donors with no official statements of explanations whatsoever. I believe this is a clear violation of BLP policy, being that it's controversial material with what appears to be a very unreliable and extremely biased source. I left this message at the user's talk page, but it was promptly removed by the IP. Please advise. Kharkiv07 (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Correct, Kickstarter comments are not reliable sources for a BLP. I will add this to my watchlist.- MrX 18:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Justin Harris AR. Legislator

To whom it may concern,

This story has recently hit some of the news sources throughout our country not as many as I would have hoped. I have noticed as of today that a team or at least a few have been scrubbing his Wiki page. I have done so with my own eyes. Why this is important is that the facts are that he is still making laws, he still has a school all of which pertain to children. He is now hiding the fact that he is more culpable than what it was showing and that the crime was more than just diddling. It also does not include the fact that he has been using all but 6% of taxpayers money to fund his Christian school. This is very distressing that he can create his own picture en-light of what the news has worked so hard to get out there. I would ask that you look at Arkansas Times, Wonkette, Raw Story and Time. Thank you for your eyes, Anna Hoffmann104.229.10.241 (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Manohar Aich

Under "feats" is listed a squat of 300kg. This has no source and is almost definitely false - at 54kg the world record is 290kg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.2.31 (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)