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.

SunnyDeo choudhary

Rather than being a biography, the article is a very short description of a particular research project initiated by Dr. Schmitt. The only info about Schmitt itself is contained in the first sentence. I believe the bio should be significantly expanded, or if no information is easily available, the article should perhaps be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xlomid (talk • contribs) 15:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Jesse Taylor

Jesse Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The first entry on this page refers to Season 25 of The Ultimate Fighter and lists the two fighters who will fight in the finale of the show. Season 25 doesn't premiere until April 19, 2017, so the information listed on Taylor's page is either inaccurate or is revealing the results of a season that has not aired yet.

link to site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.17.255.154 (talk) 16:10, April 10, 2017‎

As of today (in TV time), it's both. Right match, wrong slot. Still possible with shenanigans, I suppose. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, June 27, 2017 (UTC)

Bob Iger

Someone changed the his official name to include "EPCOT died under my reign" as his middle name. This should be corrected.

Resolved

Lyndon Martin W. Beharry

Lyndon Martin W. Beharry A self-aggrandizing article of no merit, featuring an unknown person, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_Martin_W._Beharry

Tina Fernandes Botts

Tina Fernandes Botts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have nothing against her. Botts is a fine assistant professor of philosophy at California State University, Fresno. I have seen her give talks and she is good at her job. However she is an assistant professor of philosophy, and she has not done any major contribution to any other field, nor is she an important public figure. We can't have wikipedia pages for every assistant professor in every field... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.185.139 (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2017

Robert Conroy Goldston

Can it be assumed that Robert Conroy Goldston is no longer alive simply based upon information added to File:Robert Goldston01.jpg or does WP:BDP still apply in this case? There are couple of reasons why I am asking this. The first one as to do with the question mark being used for the date of death in the first sentence of the article, which is something which seems really unencyclopedic to me. If we can verify his death through reliable sources, then that is the date which should be added; otherwise, no date or symbol should be added at all.

The second reason is a little more complex and has to do with non-free content use. Wikipedia'a non-free content use policy generally allows non-free images of deceased individuals to be used for identificatoin purposes per item 10 of WP:NFCI; however, WP:NFCC#1 does not typically allow non-free images to be used for living individuals (except in certain cases (as explained in item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI) because it is assumed that a freely licensed equivalent image can either be found or created to serve the same encyclopedic purpose. There was recently a FFD discussion about the above-mentioned file at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2017 July 17#File:Robert Goldston01.jpg where the primary argument for keeping the image was that the 115 years specified in WP:BDP is unjustifiably long, which is something which may be true in the context of the real world. FWIW, I not trying to re-debate a FFD discusison here, but just bringing it up because it is strongly related to whether Wikipedia in general considers Goldston to still be living. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The Google Groups discussion where an anonymous person claiming to be a grandchild reports that he died of cancer is not a reliable source for his date or cause of death. If he is alive, he would be 90 years old, which is not at all implausible. Although I personally believe that it is likely that he is dead, I think that we need to stick with policies and guidelines, and leave the matter an open question until we have a better source than Google Groups. Verifiability is a core content policy and his death is not yet verifiable. I apply the same reasoning to the issue of the photo. We only allow non-free images of people who have died, and since we cannot yet verify his death, I believe that the image should be deleted. Rather than saying that "Wikipedia in general" considers him to be living, I think that it is more accurate to say that we have no verifiable, reliable information on the question of whether he is now alive or dead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

In terms of both BLP considerations and use of nonfree images, when someone has not been confirmed as dead by a reliable source, we don't treat them as dead until they would be such an age that it is no longer reasonable to even suspect they might be living. Ninety is certainly not such an age; there are many living people at that age and older. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cullen328 and Seraphimblade: Thank you for your comments. I'm assuming then that unless Goldston's death can be verified through reliable sources, the question mark being used for his death date in the lead can be removed. As for the image in question, this might be a bit trickier since it was discussed at FFD and the close was a "no consensus keep". Any suggestions on how to best proceed with respect to that since the both of you are admins? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Though it is likely he is dead, I concur with what others have said above; we have no means of verifying this. Given Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy, the speculation about death in the article ("?") needs to be removed. As to the image, it needs to be removed on the grounds of WP:NFCC #1, as until such time as we can verify he is dead, we presume he is alive until WP:BDP (which is also policy) has been met. He has another 25 years before he is 115. With all respect to @Paul venter:, contesting the deletion based on a contestation of WP:BDP was inaccurate. Such a discussion might be worth having at WT:BLP. But, until the policy is in fact changed to reflect average life expectancy, then the policy as is still applies and we presume he is living. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Li Chevalier

An inadequately sourced and largely promotional biography. I'll be traveling and may not get to this for a while, but offer this invitation to those in the mood to trim some spam. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the page has been neutralized by a handful of editors. Meatsgains (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Tito Mukhopadhyay

Susan Gerbic has edited Tito Mukhopadhyay's page in a way that slanders his reputation. Furthermore, she cites opinions rather than primary research in order to do so. Tito is a person on the autism spectrum who does not speak, but types and writes independently. Ms. Gerbic has turned his page into a slanted criticism of Tito's abilities, without any supporting research--however, the opinions she cites do suggest there is such research (which there is not). Susan Gerbic ties Tito to the Rapid Prompting Method, which is the method Tito used to learn to communicate. She then suggests that RPM is linked to Facilitated Communication. There is, in fact, only one research paper on RPM, and this paper does not link RPM to FC, nor is the research critical of RPM. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by The shadow boxer (talk • contribs) 22:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The article (Tito Mukhopadhyay) as it stands is certainly confusing, being partly about its subject and partly about the merits or otherwise of the Rapid Prompting Method technique. I was tempted to nominate it for deletion or a merge with the RPM article but searches for his name do find discussion in National Geographic and the New York Times, plus a number of other sources related to autism, some of which might be considered reliable so he may just scrape through the requirements of WP:BIO. I don't have time to try and improve the article at the moment (real life getting in the way of Wiki life!) but I'll try and get back to it soon, unless someone else has the time to work on it. Neiltonks (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Allegedly dead BLP

The article, Jalaluddin Haqqani, states that the subject is "dead (alleged)" in the info box. Reliable sources report that his death has been disputed. What is the BLP policy for allegedly dead persons? Specifically should the info box list him as dead? BananaCarrot152 (talk) 03:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

No. Infobox's are for information that is definitive and verified. Not questionable. It can be covered in the body of the article text. If there is doubt about a fact it should not be in the infobox. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Imran Awan

Imran Awan, the former employee of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was arrested last week for allegedly attempting to flee the United States. He had previously pleaded "not guilty" to one count of bank fraud and is currently awaiting trial. WP:BLPCRIME definitely applies here, though it seems like some media outlets are convinced of his guilt in this and other crimes. Currently, the article accuses Awan's wife of a felony, and includes accusations found in court documents even though we don't know if those accusations are true. ^Falling_Gravity 05:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Awan was IT House staffer. Now at the center of a criminal investigation. Is there any relevance in "Imran Awan" at all? Like Seth Rich → Murder of Seth Rich. --87.159.113.4 (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Blatant BLP Violations Being Ignored

Hello all. We have a somewhat unusual problem developing at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. An editor is repeatedly and egregiously violating BLP policies within the very AN/I report filed for the same BLP violations that got the editor to the board in the first place[1]. So far it has received zero attention from an administrator, and so the BLP violations and defamatory edits continue. As I understand BLP policy, unsourced/poorly sourced or slanderous material (which this certainly is) must be removed immediately from the project. What is the best course of action, here? I believe at least two administrators have been pinged to draw their attention, to which no response has been received to date. Pinging James_J._Lambden in case he has anything to add, as the filer of the report. I apologize if this isn't the appropriate forum for this situation, but it's so unusual that I really have no clue where this belongs. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The correct place is WP:BLPN. However since all those 'BLP violations' are trivially easy to reliably source, I suspect you would be wasting your time. Either way that is the correct venue to discuss alleged BLP violations on wikipedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

(Moved from Village Pump) Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Only in death. Since you said that it's "trivially easy" to find a reliable source that says "Donald Trump is a piece of shit," and thus eligible for inclusion in the encyclopedia, would you mind linking to one or two of those sources? Just so we're all on the same page in the AN/I report? Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The sources in your diff (actually someone else' response to the diff) above don't appear very reliable. The only one I can see is maybe the Guardian, although I haven't read the article. Huffington Post and Politico are always questionable at best. Most certainly when you see The Onion listed as a source, there is a clear indication that something is amiss. (For those who don't know, The Onion prints fake news.)

In looking this over, I have to wonder just what the context of the statement is. I can only see the POS phrase used on talk pages and edit summaries. In both cases, this is an editor expressing his (or her) opinion about a person. That requires no source, for anyone can have whatever opinion they like about a person. (Ironic that the statements show more about the writer than the person they're writing about, but that's how these things work.) It only becomes slanderous and defaming if a person is pushing some false information or non-verifiable information, but obviously the person making the statements believes their opinion to be true, and they are entitled to believe what they want and to express those beliefs. Unless they are trying to put this in an article, there is no BLP vio. Even if they were, it the opinion would only need to be attributed to a notable individual. (That's talking strictly BLP vios. There are a lot of other arguments that can be made against inclusion into an article, such as balance, NPOV, encyclopedic style, etc...) Zaereth (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, Zaereth, but what you said about BLPVIO's only applying to article content is just not correct. From WP:BLPTALK: BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts. The user has violated BLP on talk pages[2], edit summaries[3], and several times on the AN/I boards[4][5], and this is just a sampler. Despite being warned multiple times to halt the defamation, the editor has soldiered onward with the BLP violations. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I am very aware of what BLP says, but that doesn't apply to people who are expressing their own personal opinions. I could just as easily say that I think Hilary Clinton is a liar that I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw her. (I'm no fan of Trump either, but in politics there rarely is a good choice. It's usually between the lesser of two evils.) All of that is merely an opinion. On the other hand, if I were to try to pass that opinion off as factual, then there would be a problem. For example,, if I said so-and-so beats his wife, committed tax fraud, and takes candy from little babies, ten I would need sources to back that up (anywhere on Wikipedia). Do you see the difference? Zaereth (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

No. You're not clear on what a BLP violation is. It doesn't matter if what you're saying is factually correct or an opinion - you cannot rant about living persons being a "piece of shit" anywhere on Wikipedia., anywhere on Wikipedia (not only in articles, as you previously argued). Period. This needs administrator attention, but thanks for chiming in. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Hidden Tempo. Zaereth if you're still paying attention please note that the editor concerned was correctly blocked. Yes maybe it took too long but it did happen as it should because they were clearly BLP violations and the editor didn't understand that and kept repeating them. Nil Einne (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Ravi Shankar (poet)

Please note that a number of false attributions continue to be made on this page. Shankar was only convicted of 2 Misdemeanors and both those "no contest" under the Alfred Doctrine, which disagrees with the facts of the case. He was never accused of theft of school funds, nor is it appropriate to list what he was allegedly arrested for when all those charges were thrown out.

Finally, someone keeps removing the wrongful arrest he had at the hands of NYPD which is well-documented at sourced and resulted in him winning a settlement against the city of New York:

http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/aug/19/indian-professor-ravi-shankar-arrested-in-us.htm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112056039

Note that this is not "your page" and the continued removal of appropriately cited material here, here, and here is a combination of conflict of interest and edit warring to whitewash the article. If there is an issue with the sources, take it up with them. Wikipedia does not create content, only reports it. Scr★pIron^IV 22:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

There is a pattern of malicious editing on this page. For example, one of the cited sources is from the highly non-partisan Fox News which claims "Witkos also points out that one of Shankar's previous convictions, for credit card fraud, was related to his using school equipment and stealing from school funds." - that is not credible sourcing. Just because Witkos claimed that and it was reported doesn't make it factual. In fact, Mr. Shankar was never accused of stealing from school funds. This was just a politician grandstanding and doesn't constitute neutrality nor meet the standard of factual reporting necessary to be on a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plumtreegumtree (talk • contribs) 22:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

And registering an account to avoid scrutiny does not absolve you of the WP:3RR edit warring violation. The news reported that your conviction was based on stealing school funds. You continually revert sourced material about yourself, which is a violation of more policies than you realize. Take it up with the folks Fox 61. Scr★pIron^IV 22:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Again the news reported that a politician SAID this, not that it was true. Donald Trump says many things that are untrue. Would we use them as facts on Wikipedia? Again please refer to Wiki policies, "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plumtreegumtree (talk • contribs) 22:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Mike Kelly (gridiron football)

I wonder if any of you have an opinion on this edit--someone was charged and fired, and then charges were dropped. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Assuming its reliably sourced, it would be relevant and not undue as it relates to how he left the team. Doesnt merit more than a one line 'left after being arrested for X' however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That is a good question; is it a WP:BLPVIO to list the crimes a person was accused of - where charges were actually filed, not just accusations - in reliable sources? Sometimes a person can be notable for their exoneration. The sources there show the subject was fired - even though the charges were dropped. I would say that is a significant life event - and the article does state that the charges were dropped. When and how a notable individual changes/loses the very job that makes them notable should be noteworthy enough for inclusion. Scr★pIron^IV 22:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Go for it! Drmies (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree. This is quite notable to the subject. However, the first source is a dead link; so the only cited source states that the reason he was "released" had nothing to do with the "allegations". This was in 2009; there aren't any other sources to be cited with more relevant and further coverage of his release? Certainly the wording that was removed from the article could be elaborated on with better sources to draw from ... in my opinion. For a BLP, I would expect more details and far more sources. Maineartists (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Sandro Rosell

Known as a very bad FC Barcelona president in the club's history because of his decisions, his controversy should be more duly noted. The fact that he's in jail is barely mentioned and only in one sentence. He was the president when the Neymar case begun and responsible for it (see Grup 14, The Neymar Case Explained) he's credited with things that aren't true, for one that he brought Ronaldinho to the club, which there is no proof of (in fact, the source cited in the wiki is corrupted, included many other sources which are unreachable).

In jail, but for different reasons than stated in the article. The club was for first time in history charged with tax fraud because of decisions made during his tenure. He is being investigated by the FBI.

References

--Meliodas24 (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I have removed some of the above as unsourced negative claims about a living person. You will also need sources for the last claim you make, otherwise that will be removed too. MPS1992 (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a notice page. What gives you the right to do that? Everything I said is true. You should've asked for me to provide sources before removing anything I said. I am going to talk to others about this making sure that you are not making a mistake.--Meliodas24 (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Where do any of the sources you cite here say that he is in jail for different reasons than cited in the article? And where do any of them mention the FBI? MPS1992 (talk) 22:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, now you seem to have provided a source for the latter. Next time, I suggest bringing the sources first, not last. MPS1992 (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

You are not the police of Wikipedia, you don't need to lecture me. Do you still have any questions? Meliodas24 (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Mark Moody-Stuart

Sir Moody Stuart was not a directer of the GRI, he served on their board of directers, thats different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.157.25 (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

If you have WP:RS reliable sources to back such claims, be bold WP:BOLD and make the change. WP encourages it! Cheers. Maineartists (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Brendan O'Connor (media personality)

In accordance to the concerns raised at Ticket:2017062010020004, there are genuine concerns about the neutrality and BLP compliance of Brendan O'Connor (media personality) esp. in this section..It will be helpful if any of the content-experts in these topics choose to grace the article.Thanks! Winged Blades ^Godric 09:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

That particular single-source section verges (well, goes well past mere "verging") on pure polemic opinion in a review, and not a "claim of fact" which is what BLPs should seek. As such, it has to be removed. Collect (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

O'Connor is a deliberately provocative media celebrity (a la Hannity etc. in the US). There are bound to be negative as well as positive RS about him; as long as they're reliable and not UNDUE, it's not an issue, I suspect. Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved editor who appeared due to an OTRS ticket, I believe some of the content in the section does violate WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT. Winged Blades ^Godric 07:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Austin Petersen#Agnostic or atheist

I noticed this at COIN. Can someone with BLP experience which sadly is no longer me have a look at Talk:Austin Petersen#Agnostic or atheist and the current article? I'm somewhat concerned since while we do have one decent news source, the others mostly seem to be direct Facebook or Twitter posts rather than RS coverage of said posts so wonder if there could be an WP:Undue violation here. (Although the part the subject seems to oppose in our article seems to be the part that's in the only news source.) Note that while there's nothing in the infobox, there is a category so there's potentially also a WP:BLPCAT issue involved. Nil Einne (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Michael Mehta

I am the living person referrred to in this article. I am involved in a very big public debate about air quality in Kamloops at the moment and an anonymous editor constantly adds material to my entry that is libellous and out of context. I would either like my entry deleted completely or a freeze on edits.

Michael Mehta [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mim708 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

• Note--this article began as an autobiography, and has been carefully tended by the above account for more than a decade. 2601:188:180:11F0:1D82:BD96:9C93:DA31 (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It appears we have one SPA making COI edits on this BLP, and another making poorly sourced SYNTH edits to add negative material to it. Something of a mess. MPS1992 (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes--I submit that both the IP and the 'owner' need to be restrained, and allow neutral editors to undo the mess. Probably some of the recently added content belongs, but minus the synthesis and undue negative spin. Historically this has been handled nearly as a resume by the subject. 2601:188:180:11F0:1D82:BD96:9C93:DA31 (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It might make sense to check Michael D. Mehta for notability (in Wikipedia's special sense of the term), and nominate it for deletion if it doesn't meet the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. But I am terrible at assessing academic biographical articles, so I won't try this possible approach myself. Generally speaking, the article appears to be poorly sourced and overly detailed. GermanJoe (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

After I made a request at RFPP, the article has been ECF protected for a week, which should have the effect of temporarily restraining both the unregistered editor and the COI editor, as suggested by an apparently different unregistered editor above. I have not yet assessed the article for notability, but the account claiming to be the subject would not appear to object to the article's deletion. MPS1992 (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

MPS1992 - I can't find much which points to him being a notable academic in WP terms, though some of the criteria in WP:PROF are a bit subjective such as "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" and I suppose he could scrape in. I might stick my neck out a little and take him to AFD, if only to get opinions from some editors who're more familiar with academic notability. Neiltonks (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Dana Rohrabacher

We're seeing a problem with WP:UNDUE in the article Dana Rohrabacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). After I pared back an unencyclopedic WP:UNDUE statement in which an exchange of views over one question Rorabacher recently asked during a session of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology was presented verbatim and given undue weight over the rest of Rorabacher's activity on that House Committee, User:Tomwsulcer reverted the change for this reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dana_Rohrabacher&diff=794980837&oldid=794932776 - his edit summary read "Rv as per WP:MOS the lede section is supposed to summarize subjects main points which should not be buried below.". The change wasn't in a lede paragraph. User:Tomwsulcer is referring to another discussion on that article's talk page which also has relevance to this issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dana_Rohrabacher#Lede_paragraphs. In that section, he told another editor "this one supposedly little fact may be what causes this guy to resign, and it should not be buried" which seems to show he wanted the change to create WP:PROPAGANDA.

I have no problem with Rorabacher's embarrassing stands being mentioned in the article with due weight with other information about him, but an encyclopedic article ought to summarize this information with inline citations to allow the reader to find the source material in greater detail. It should not reproduce information word-for-word with accompanying white space from the source document, in a way we don't see in encyclopedic articles. I'd like other editors to examine the specific change I mentioned at the top of this report and the entire Dana Rohrabacher article in general to see whether or not my impression that the article presents information damaging to the subject with undue weight, creating WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP concerns, is valid. Thanks. loupgarous (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

My concern was not with Vfrikey's change (which will be restored) but with a previous POV editor, who removed swaths of referenced content. We're trying to keep the article balanced.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned that the article makes a point of highlighting what appears to be a simple slip of the tongue -- saying "thousands" instead of "billions" See the "Space" section. Here is what was said:

The congressman continued: "Is it possible that there was a civilization on Mars thousands of years ago?"

"So, the evidence is that Mars was different billions of years ago. Not thousands of years ago," Farley said.

"Billions, well. Yes," Rohrabacher said.

The fact that he asked about ancient civilization on Mars is significant. The thousands/millions error was the verbal equivalent of a typo that was quickly corrected. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

This edit is really all I need to see. Tolkienwarrior is WP:NOTHERE. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Ewen Southby-Tailyour

Someone is posting incorrect statements about one of my clients - named above. They have been removed four times but keep on re-appearing. The simple fact is that the articles imply that my client was involved in a fraudulent company. When my client was involved both artists and the investors were happy as a number of joint exhibitions showed. When the company was eventually 'hijacked' by a criminal team my client was no longer involved as he had already been sacked to save his reputation. Any suggestion otherwise is libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:24FD:6100:698F:579E:81B2:674F (talk) 11:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, 2A00:23C4:24FD:6100:698F:579E:81B2:674F and welcome to WP. I presume that you are referring to this contribution at said article: [6]? First of all, it's important to note that your editing at this article is a conflict of interest due to your ties with the subject. See: WP: COI. However, you do have a right to bring these concerns to the article's Talk Page here: Talk Page and start a discussion about a possible BLP violation. I do see that the sources used (Telegraph) in backing the claims for this content are not reliable WP:RS and can / should be challenged. Furthermore, the content itself mentions other guilty parties: "The previous directors Christopher Sabin and Tobias Alexander Ridpath both now facing lengthy prison sentences for their involvement with Imperial Escrow Limited". This has nothing to do with the subject and leaves a bad association. The quote "Tailyour stated that he was only a Chairman in face and not involved in the running of the business although it is his position and the use of his face in marketing and events that many saw as a sign of a safe investment" is vague and someone misleading by speculation without proper reference quoting. If you have sources to back your claim, please open a discussion and present them on the Talk Page. In addition, there are other BLP issues that might need addressing: mentioning of non-notable children by name, occupation and location in the section Personal life. These need to go. Good luck. Maineartists (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, I noticed in the edit history that you have now used 3 separate IP accounts. This can be seen to be what is referred to as "Sockpuppetry" WP:SP. However, it is most likely "good faith" WP:AGF on your part. It might be best if you set up an actual account and log in with Wikipedia so that you will be taken seriously at noticeboards and on Talk Pages; since this issue will most likely become a discussion with a debate due to contested challenges for content. Just a suggestion. Maineartists (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• Editor assistance requested at Ewen Southby-Tailyour. Not only contentious material of a BLP but numerous IP accounts: [7]. Attempted to start a discussion on Talk Page, which no editor has wished to partake. Latest removal of COI tag by suspicious SP [8]. Extra set of eyes would be appreciated. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

To attempt to summarize the edit history (most recent at the top):

[9] [10] claims that he wasn't involved in this fraud, but has no references.

[11] claims he was involved in the fraud. Until it is discussed on the talk page, it would be a BLP violation to restore this controversial claim. Of the 4 references, the only one that mentions Ewen is [12], and it doesn't claim he was involved in the fraud.

[13] disputes claims regarding Ewen's actions during the Falklands War.

The page is being mostly edited by IP users and single-purpose editors; I'm requesting page protection. That may be sufficient to solve the issues. The IP editor acting on behalf of Ewen Southby-Tailyour should Contact OTRS if they see further problems. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected for one week but the sourcing is dire and that needs sorting out. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Ben Slade

This article seems like self-promotion and reads like a CV.--FDent (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Good catch, it's being edited by many SPAs (several of whom also edit SkillForce). May be a case of mass COI editing. I tagged those two articles and with multiple issues. Prince William Award also appears related. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Mike Wallace (historian)

Hello,

I have prepared a biography of the above-mentioned person, who is the founder of the organization I direct at the City University of New York, The Gotham Center for New York City History. I found 63 citations to provide, and used the model of an equally prominent historian for length and style. However, after triggering the notice about seeming to violate Wikipedia's policy on living persons biographies (I presume, because of my professional relation), I have been unable to post this material, although I've read the links provided. Please advise. I'm happy to send the biography with all the citations as a Word file.

Peter-Christian Aigner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcaigner (talk • contribs) 18:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Pcaigner: First, please see WP:COI and specifically WP:DISCLOSE (or the section below it if you are being paid). You should probably post your proposed sources and changes to Talk:Mike Wallace (historian) rather than editing the article directly. Also please WP:SIGN your talk page posts with ~~~~. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

2017 Charlottesville attack

2017 Charlottesville attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe this article name is in clear violation if WP:BLPCRIME. The accused has not been convicted of the alleged crime. Calling it an "attack" defames them. It is potentially libelous to the car driver.

I cited two sources calling the event the more neutral Charlottesville car crash:

• "Charlottesville car crash suspect ID'd as 20-year-old Ohio man". CNN.
• "Charlottesville Rally Turns Deadly: One Killed After Car Strikes Crowd". NBCNews.com. 12 August 2017. Retrieved 13 August 2017. Trump did not respond when reporters asked whether the Charlottesville car crash was terrorism or if he denounced white nationalism.

Clear violations like this should be fixed regardless of how many chime in that calling it "attack" is just dandy. Wikipedia has higher standards of verifiability than many tabloids and their lack of NPOV should not be grounds for us to mimic it.

Given that many sources are neutrally calling it "crash" and not "attack" I think it is imperative to follow that example instead of the inflammatory examples. ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Quite aside from the fact that other similar articles use "attack" in the title before anyone was convicted (2017 Melbourne car attack; 2017 Stockholm attack; 2017 Finsbury Park attack), this article is subject to a proposed merge, which is heading for a snow merge. Any renaming of the article would therefore be moot. WWGB (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Page has been merged with 2017 Unite the Right rally, for the record--Sir Zyr (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Princess Antonia, Duchess of Wellington

More opinions requested at the move discussion at Talk:Princess Antonia, Duchess of Wellington where the discussion is about a requested move on behalf of the subject and does that conflict with common name. Nthep (talk) 10:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC labeling in lede

Please comment at Talk:Jared_Taylor#RfC_labeling_in_lede ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Elmer Jamias

Elmer Jamias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm self-reporting because I'm not sure whether these allegations against the article subject should be included: (diff) The material is sourced but was removed by a COI editor. I've since been made aware of a source confirming that the latter allegation was eventually dismissed; I would naturally add that info and source if the allegations should stay. Thanks, GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 06:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Rich DiSilvio

Rich DiSilvio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can we get some more people watching Rich DiSilvio? There's a bit of back and forth going on between two editors, including one who is an WP:SPA who keeps trying to re-add unsourced promotional content to the article. Regardless, the multiple reverting should be stopped since its starting to get disruptive, so maybe more feedback from others can help find a happy medium without ending up at WP:AN3. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, dubious material like unsourced/unreferenced promotional claims " whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Once DVed objected to the PROD, I was willing let the stub stand and allow him an opportunity to provide a satisfactory text -- but instead he's been adding material that reads like it's cut and pasted from the subject's own PR biography, either without any references or sourced to promo and retailer pages. Those are textbook examples of material that's subject to summary removal under WP:BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

2017 Unite the Right rally

Input from editors with experience in BLP, especially BLPCRIME, is sought at this discussion. GoldenRing (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Blatant WP:FORUMSHOPping and possible WP:CANVASS occuring here - wrong policy and discussion is already occuring at the talk page. Twitbookspacetube 12:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)