Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:24, 18 November 2017

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

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

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

Additional notes:

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

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

Hannah Holborn Gray

Hanna Holborn Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the body of the article about Hannah you mention that she was at Northwestern University, Evanston campus, however in the chronological listing you don't mention Northwestern Unversity!!!!!She was also Dean of Woman at NU. Please contact her office or Northwestern University and correct this omission. Much appreciated.......Quecumquae sunt veritas!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:b02b:848e:f936:e48c:c029:4e95 (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2017‎

Glenn R. Simpson

• Glenn R. Simpson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"However the Republican donor soon dropped out of what Simpson and Fusion GPS were doing. The Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign for president picked up the deal with Fusion GPS and funded the remaining political assignation of Donald Trump before he was elected the 45th President of the United States"

There are so sources. This Fusion GPS ordeal is conspiratorial so keeping the pages as informative and perhaps unassuming seems important. Currently, the article does not source and does not seem to provide a verifiable, neutral point of view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:901:6570:79dc:deea:ae1e:8a5e (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2017‎ (UTC)

'cosmo jarvis' wiki page

• Cosmo Jarvis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,

The information presented here on Cosmo Jarvis is not up to date and ignores many developments in recent years. Especially in '2010 to present' section - here there are many informations which are lacking or which, if included while others are not, creates an article which requires more detail and overall context to shed light on his recent works (especially as an actor in theatre, TV and FILM)

(see here) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4008605/

His involvement with 'Hawke the movie' while correct information should not be featured at the expense of other, more notable, widely distributed and arguable more significant works.

I am suggesting the need for a revision/update on this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.215.89 (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2017‎ (UTC)

Vladimir Plahotniuc

Vladimir Plahotniuc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looks like some very controversial info is being edit warred in/out of this article almost daily lately, eg regrettably I lack time to sort out what is or isn't properly sourced or a BLP vio right now. Please take a look & help watch. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I started watch this last month, back-forth, back-forth, but see it is in controversy section and is cited so I support including infromation. I added info back in that Penfold included. Is this allowed to copy from Penfold usewr to add back in, or this is plagiat? I see this as ok, but will stop if not ok to use Penfold writing to cut and paste back into article. I read the citations and infomration looks correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.158.1.66 (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Gyadari Balamallu

Gyadari Balamallu simply known as Balamallu is the present chairman of Telangana state industrial infrastructure corporation (TSIIC). He got originated from siddipet, Telangana. He got married to Karuna Sri Gyadari. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kupoireddy Sai Charan (talk • contribs) 10:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Philippe DioGuardi

Philippe DioGuardi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This seems very self-serving, as though written as a piece of advertising by the person who is the subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic the Jack (talk • contribs) 18:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It appears to be not only self-serving but self-written and lacking any real genuine sources, mainly relying on his own SPS material. And a little bit of criticism, but the sad truth is that I am not even sure of the notability of the person in the first place. Someone please RfD this mess! Collect (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Beatie

This is really more of a question, and hopefully the right place to post this. I came across this edit, which removed the female birth name of a trans man with a rationale regarding privacy. I looked through WP:BLP, MOS:GENDERID, and even WP:Gender identity, and I'm not sure which way to go on this. Cannolis (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

If and only if current reliable sources mention the birth name does Misplaced Pages tend to allow the use of the birth name. Clearly if the person refers to a birth name, that counts as a good source. Misplaced Pages is not here to stress controversy about individuals, or at least should not do so. Collect (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Do the Honolulu Star-Advertiser and The Nation suffice for this? 1 2. I'm taking current to stretch back a couple years because it doesn't seem like much has been going on since 2015 with him. Cannolis (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Gail Kim

Is it OK to describe "assaults" in way that is not making clear whatever there are obviously scripted events called "assaults" or actual real-world assaults?

I started https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Gail_Kim/1 but I am not sure whatever these mentions should be also removed from article and not inserted without clarification (I have limited knowledge about acting so for now I made no edits to article) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Tarah Wheeler

Tarah Wheeler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article seems like a self-promoting advertisement. It contains untrue statements presented as facts without substantial citations. Example - "After a record-breaking Kickstarter campaign...". The citations for this statement don't verify this claim.

The article also contains a lot of redundant text like "She gave advice to women technologists on interview techniques and salary negotiation, when she was a systems architect at mobile encryption firm Silent Circle."

On removing all the unverifiable and poorly sourced claims and redundant statements, the whole article can be condensed down to one line - "Tarah Wheeler is an advocate for diversity in tech".

In all honesty, I don't think this page even should be there. The person concerned doesn't have enough notability to warrant an article. Iamoaf (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

At least three of the first 4 references I checked tick all the boxes on WP:GNG: significant articles in independent, reliable sources (Forbes, The Register and Seattle Weekly News). She almost certainly passes notability standards. I see that the language is factual and direct, lacking the flowery adjectives that usually mark promotional articles. Honestly, it reads much like what you would expect of any article about a notable business executive. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Forbes/Sites, not Forbes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

How is she "a notable business executive"? According to the info on her page, she founded one company, and even so, it has no website or any significant web presence, considering it is an internet based business. And she's only worked at a couple of other companies. Seems to me that she's just another business executive. Also, a lot of statements on her page can be challenged: She's a scientist, but has she published any research papers? She is a poker player, but has she played in any significant poker tournaments? She's a hacker, but has she "hacked", or found/researched any software vulnerabilities? Most of the information on that page lacks sufficient backing material. Undoubtedly, she's an author and has written but one book, and that too on a very niche topic, for a very narrow audience. Does that warrant a page? Iamoaf (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll admit that it's a tight fit, but I think she does meet the notability criteria. She appears to do a lot of work promoting diversity in cybersecurity and has received significant coverage for it. However, some of the article language makes it sound like a fan of hers wrote it; I think we can keep the article if we rewrite it with a more neutral tone. --Blueclaw (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Julian Fantino

I am not sure if recent addition to this article, sourced from an affidavit, meets WP:BLP. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverted per BLPPRIMARY Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Minneapolis child sex abuse ring

• Draft:Minneapolis child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This may need more eyes because of sensitive topic and potential BLP issues. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 23:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It had been submitted, and out of an abundance of caution, I declined it. Editor is quite new; I'll leave working with him to others. John from Idegon (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks John, —PaleoNeonate – 23:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Deleted by Cullen328 as CSD#G10 attack page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It may be possible to write a policy compliant article about this topic, but such an article would not list people convicted of nothing, and would not contain highly opinionated, tabloid-style commentary. Cullen Let's discuss it 04:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Update: Minneapolis child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Was since created in main space, but has gained some attention and is currently in a better state. —PaleoNeonate – 00:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Given that the article has included such things as unsourced claims about the backgrounds of the clients and listing crimes for which no one was listed as being convicted, care should be taken that this does not end up an attack page... and it is questionable whether there needs to be a page for this at all, or whether this was just a sad news item without lasting import on the larger scale. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It was deleted as an attack page. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and then it was recreated, and the version that is in article space now had that content in until I edited it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It still does not pass muster. 29 individuals were the subject of an indictment; three were convicted and six were acquitted. (The article does not say what happened to the others). The allegations of the indictment are reported as factual, rather than being qualified as allegations only. There is a reason why news sources always qualify allegations; Misplaced Pages must do so also. Kablammo (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Considering the creator was issued a 4im warning for the draft, shouldn't some admin action be taken, at least a stronger statement that this is not going to be tolerated? The editor creating these articles seems from his contributions to have a strong interest in sex scandals of various sorts. Do we want to keep dealing with this? John from Idegon (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Despite the posts here and the involvement of several experienced editors, the article continued to report as fact what were only allegations. I have, I hope, corrected that. But the name of the article itself implies a series of events which were not proved against most of the targets, for most of the offenses. Kablammo (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Minneapolis child sex abuse ring. SarahSV 20:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

In the wake of someone noticing that the few convictions in the case had been overturned, the article has now been deleted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Mukund Purohit article

Mukund Purohit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Eyes are needed at this article. A lot of POV language and poor sourcing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Mohit Hooda

One off IP vandalism of BLP. I have done a revert as per this but it might need a full rollback and hide. Eno Lirpa (talk) 12:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Jose Ignacio Salafranca

Hello,

I have seen in the article about José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, a paragraph called controversy that can be libelous and affect the image of Mr. Salafranca. According to the rules of the European Parliament is the secretariat of the Delegations and the hosting countries the persons in charge of the preparation of the trips and then they have to be approved by the Parliament, for this reason, Mr. Salafranca wasn't responsible of the expenditure of the trip and the controversy paragraph can give the impression of it.

This is why either that paragraph should be edited adding the whole scope or deleted.

Thank you

@Juanba90: - please see WP:NLT and do not throw comments like "libelous " around. I have renamed the section. GiantSnowman 15:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

David Stronach, British archaeologist

David Stronach's life is misrepresented in his biography. The sentence: "The family fled to Israel at the time of the 1979 Iranian Revolution and moved to the United States shortly afterwards" is incorrect. The family relocated to the US after the revolution, and eventually ended up at the University of California. As he is a relative of mine, I was able to verify that the posting in Misplaced Pages is incorrect. I tried to update this last night and it was rejected -- whoever rejected it is not in position of the correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshstrohbaum (talk • contribs) 17:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Joshstrohbaum, the issue was not having published references for the information. You can't add something just because you know it. This is an encyclopedia article (think shelves of volumes like the Dictionary of Scientific Biography), not a "posting" on social media. However you removed something that wasn't in the reference given for the paragraph, so it shouldn't have been added back. Also a new editor should never be given a final fourth-level warning as the first warning, so you were badly treated. I've updated the article with what I could find references for. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Mikhail Blagosklonny

An IP editor has been repeatedly trying to remove/whitewash sourced negative material from Mikhail Blagosklonny and from the associated article Oncotarget. The IP claims the source is unreliable but the consensus at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 197#Retraction Watch on the same source for other BLPs is that it's reliable (and it's used similarly on many other BLPs). More eyes on the articles would be welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The link you provide is about Retraction Watch which is also being discussed in the talk page of this article. Stop confusing the two sources. This is about Jeffrey Beall's list which is a self-published blog and has no place on a BLP per WP:BLPSPS. Note the discussion you link to even says that Beall's list is worse than RetractionWatch.40.134.67.50 (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

That is an odd mis-reading of WP:SPS. Beall is an expert in predatory and otherwise dodgy academic journal publishing and is well-recognized for this expertise. Beall's List therefore fits squarely within the meaning of reliable sources in the very policy you cite: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Emphasis in the original. Continuing to edit-war to remove the information cited to this source has every appearance of tendentious editing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

References

1. Beall, J. (2012). "Predatory publishers are corrupting open access". Nature. 489 (7415): 179. Bibcode:2012Natur.489..179B. doi:10.1038/489179a. PMID 22972258.
2. Beall, J. (2013). "Predatory publishing is just one of the consequences of gold open access". Learned Publishing. 26 (2): 79–83. doi:10.1087/20130203.
3. Berger, Monica; Cirasella, Jill (2015). "Beyond Beall's List: Better understanding predatory publishers". College & Research Libraries News. 76 (3). Retrieved 13 November 2017.
4. Butler, Declan (28 March 2013). "The Dark Side of Publishing" (PDF). Nature. 495 (7442): 433. Retrieved 13 November 2017.

• @Eggishorn: Please finish reading the paragraph in WP:SPS which says Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. Second emphasis mine.
• In any case, I was referring to WP:BLPSPS which clearly states Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. Emphasis mine. 40.134.67.50 (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Retraction Watch is a good source for "predatory journal", which can now be supplemented with The Scientist also saying it's considered predatory. However the current sourcing is very borderline for supporting the other BLP-allegations. I suggest the direct BLP-allegations be removed per BLPREQUESTRESTORE policy, pending the result of the open RFC at Talk:Oncotarget#Threats_of_retraction. Alsee (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Bleeding Heartland Roller Derby

Someone not involved could look at latest iteration and see if it needs reversion or even revdel. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It's definitely not well enough sourced for its accusations. I'll remove it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Casting couch

Misplaced Pages at it's best, I guess?93.93.67.179 (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure about this article. My overall feeling is that most of the accusations are WP:BLP violations and should not remain, but my fear is that if I just dive in and butcher the article, it'll end up in a messy edit war and I'd sooner avoid that if I can! I'm starting a thread on the article's talk page in the hope that some kind of consensus can be reached. Neiltonks (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggest renaming to List of alleged rapists in the entertainment industry. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The editor who recently expanded this list seems to be using the article to right great wrongs. I can find no discernible criteria for including incidents in the list, so I have removed the entire section pending discussion. It includes unproven allegations of sexual assault by named, living people. If that's not a BLP issue, I don't know what is. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that if it's a list-article, only very notable cases should be listed pointing at articles (assuming that these were high profile enough and well sourced enough to exist). Otherwise, only minimal high profile cases could serve as examples and the article should be shortened to be about the description and existence, maybe prevalence, not a list of cases... And yes, any allegation is inappropriate unless there were convictions. Thanks for the cleanup, —PaleoNeonate – 04:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Jimmy Page

See talkpage history (and most of previous discussion on this is in Archive 2). This has been an ongoing problem over the years with various IP editors attempting to insinuate or otherwise state Page has committed a crime. Leaving aside the legalities for the moment, BLP is very clear on what we can and cant do, and stating someone has committed a serious crime when they have not been arrested, charged or convicted of such is something we cant do.

The problem is there is no acceptable physical relationship between a 14 year old and a man of his age (at that time). The article currently mentions it, in what is on the surface appears to be a 'neutral' wording, but since there is nothing neutral about the act itself, comes across as whitewashing. I am at a loss at this point, I am half-tempted to remove all mention of Maddox altogether as it is extremely frustrating to have to defend according to WP policy what is otherwise indefensible. I doubt this would stick as it is well sourced and has been covered over an extended period of time (and more can be found) both in biographies as primary recollections from two of the individuals involved and by the media in general. So there we are. Thoughts? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• I've removed the passage, primarily because I disagree that it's well-sourced. We have citations to the "unauthorised biography" and to two secondary sources, which if you click through a read you will note also rely on that same biography. In fact the Rolling Stone article claims it's "fact checking" but doesn't even cite a source. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it doesn't belong here per WP:BLP unless high-quality sources are used. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

While not currently in the article, there are primary sources involved too. Both Cole (the 'kidnapper') and Maddox have confirmed the substance of the event. Page has wisely kept silent on it. The current sources were the best compromise previously (rolling stone and independent) as Cole's biography was not considered acceptable (I own it, and I agree, he is not a reliable witness by himself). It can be well sourced and compliant as to the bare facts - that Cole arranged for Maddox to meet Page, and they started some form of relationship. The rest of the salacious details can be sourced to varying degrees of reliability. The question is should it? I personally have always been against gossip, but the counter argument is Rolling Stone and Independent are still covering the story 30 years later, there is at least some lasting impact. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

But the only real source being used is the unauthorized biography, since RS (maybe) and Independent are citing it as fact. I'm very uncomfortable with that. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I would steer clear of primary sources here as per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:NOR, particularly WP:PRIMARY. Any discussion will absolutely need solid, reliable secondary sources. Primary sources can be used to support them, but with care. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes this is why they were not used, and it was sourced to the independent, rolling stone and the non-primary unauthorized biography (an authorized biography will only show want the subject wants and is no better than a primary source). Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• I disagree strongly that there is no way to include well-sourced allegations in an article. BLP is clear that they must be described as allegations rather than a fact of law, yes, but Page is WP:WELLKNOWN. "BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." There are multiple sources, two of which are well-established, reliable, and fact-checked organizations. If the legal departments of Rolling Stone and The Independent are comfortable publishing an allegation, I can see no reason why Misplaced Pages should not do so. 50.79.5.81 (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of contemporaneous witnesses that there was some sort of relationship. That it was sexual appears to source from the girl. Problem is, there are also various stories that originate from the same girl that she lost her virginity to Bowie at 13, 14 and 15. Also, the word kidnapped may have been metaphorical. Quite possibly all true; but rather iffy for an encyclopedia. O3000 (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe it's our responsibility as editors to determine the veracity of the statements. They're sourced and they belong in the article. Attempting to cast doubt on Ms Maddox's stories, especially based on information not in the provided sources, is WP:OR. If it's all false and Jimmy Page decides to sue somebody over it, that's on Stephen Davis, the Independent, and Rolling Stone. It is categorically not irresponsible or "iffy" for Misplaced Pages to repeat noteworthy allegations that have been discussed broadly by reliable sources for three decades. Misplaced Pages editors have done their due diligence; that's why it's attributed to three different sources. The section must be restored - and, separately, should not be in the "Partners" section of the article, because a child cannot be an adult's "partner". My pointing that out was the inciting incident which caused the section to be deleted. 50.79.5.81 (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed the substance of my argument, which is that an "unauthorized biography" is a very weak source for us to publish allegations against a living person of kidnapping and sexual conduct with a minor. You have yet to produce any sources other than those just repeating what the book says, which is a primary source (Maddox's account). We are not a news source, nor are we a music journal. We are an encyclopedia. It is absolutely our responsibility to assess the sources we're using and use the highest quality sources, especially when dealing with a BLP. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The Independent refers to it as a "story", merely parrots what was in the unauthorized bio and says the girl "claims" she fell in love. A total of three sentences on the situation. The Rolling Stone article provides only two paragraphs with little detail. In both cases, the relationship was a small part of the articles. And yes, we are allowed to look at other sources. That’s not OR. O3000 (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not in dispute that it is alleged that Page raped Ms Maddox. I am not suggesting that Misplaced Pages say anything more - the statement is obviously true, but I agree it is not Misplaced Pages's job to say that the statement is true. An allegation made in multiple sources is noteworthy in and of itself, and should be included per WP:BLP. Right now, however, we seem to be talking in circles. What is the path of action required for us to move forwards together to get this information back into the article? 50.79.5.81 (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

A court case would do it. Major coverage in the media as per Weinstein would merit inclusion of an "allegations" section. With the sources we have, which do not appear to constitute WP:RS,... I doubt it would get there. We could not include it without invoking WP:LBL Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This is indeed a very serious allegation, especially if true, but people of varying levels of celebrity receive unsavory allegations against them all the time - Page himself is no stranger to that, if his troubled relationship with fellow songwriters spanning many years is any indication. However, what we're not seeing - and have repeatedly asked for - is " allegation made in multiple sources". You, dear IP editor, insist that this condition has been fulfilled, but we find it has not. It has been stated that there were many eyewitnesses, but we have yet to find them and all we have is the vague attribution along the lines of "many eyewitnesses". The veracity of the claimant has also been called into question, though I would definitely like a source for the claim that she made any such claim against David Bowie. Going back to my original point, for this claim to be included in the article we would need proof that 1) it made a notable, substantial impact on the subject's life or career, and 2) it's not just among the noise of claims that have no doubt been made over the years. Someone tried to sue Justin Bieber over the writing of the song "Somebody to Love", but the suit is not mentioned in the article because it has never been proven to truly matter for the subject at hand. It is not in dispute that such an allegation was made against Bieber, but if I recall correctly it was dismissed, and we rightfully omit any reference to the suit on the basis that it never proved to matter. But these sorts of claims are made all the time, and whether we acknowledge them depends on whether this has forced any subject of our articles to do anything, e.g. Page getting dropped from promos because of the accusations. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist _{(Follow my trail)} 05:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Given the following, Hammer of the Gods absolutely should not be used as a source, nor should articles that quote it:

Richard Cole toured with LED ZEPPELIN throughout the group's late 1960s/'70s heyday, and went on to become the primary source for author Stephen Davis' landmark 1985 account of the band's excesses on the road, "Hammer Of The Gods".

When Jones later asked him why he'd exaggerated the group's bad behavior for the book, Cole explained that he'd been a drug addict who needed the money

• "LED ZEPPELIN Bassist 'Disowns' Road Manager After Biographies", Blabbermouth.net, 13 Dec 2007, retrieved 15 Nov 2017

Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Nguyễn Minh Tú

Nguyễn Minh Tú (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been a lot of fabrication with regards to Nguyễn Minh Tú real birth year. 2 wiki contributors are refusing to use factual and are relying on unreliable articles to state her birth year is either 1992 or 1993. Today is 14 November which is her birthday, and in her own social media, she states she is celebrating her 26th birthday which means her real birth year is in fact 1991. When we try to correct the wiki page, the 2 contributors keep changing it and citing unreliable online portals as a reference, despite being told and written to that we are correcting the information based on facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.127.40.70 (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Dianna Cowern

Dianna Cowern

Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dianna_Cowern&diff=prev&oldid=808489278

Attempting to use Misplaced Pages to send inappropriate videos to the subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.31.130 (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, that was inappropriate. And creepy. I’ve semi-protected the page for a while and revision deleted the offending edits. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

marco iannuzzi

Marco Iannuzzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page is this financial sales guy's CV. Philanthropy is generally characterized by giving money, not self promotional efforts such as being the emcee for events where you desire personal recognition. Way too many unverified sources. Kudos to him for trying though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.166.14.244 (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The page certainly reads like a puff piece. I'll go through and clean it up but welcome others for additional eyes. Meatsgains (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Spartan Race

• Spartan Race (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Spartan Race is an endurance event with a disputed past, seemingly involving the co-founders trying to sue each other into oblivion. Over the past couple years, a number of editors have tried to evaluate the poorly documented history of the race, most recently here, resulting in the reasonably sourced article we currently have. Despite good-faith efforts and a number of indefinite blocks, since at least 2015 an individual has been trying to push a POV that Julian Kopald is one of the original founders but has not been able to provide any kind of source, other than a long list of websites similar to "josephdesena exposed" and "joetherat com" (not linked because clearly BLP violations; Joe De Sena is one of the documented co-founders). It's likely this editor is Kopald and that he created these websites himself, and since being blocked for legal threats in August he's been using throwaways and IPs to continue disrupting the article.

Based on a published correction in one of the only sources that covers the legal dispute (that the co-founders settled out of court, later corrected to indicate that one refused to settle) and Kopald's legal nonsense on this site, my feeling is that Kopald threatens lawyers against anyone who publishes an origin of the site that doesn't include his name. And the quality of the sources that Kopald himself repeatedly offers makes me think that his story is not entirely truthful. The most recent time a list of sources was offered for this (here) and I tried to respond with a line-by-line rebuttal, another IP likely used by Kopald responded with more insults and threats, while another user suggested that at least one of the sources might possibly be useful. I'm here because I think we need an outside look at these sources, listed behind the link in this paragraph.

My feeling is that any mention of Kopald in any marginally reliable source (such as this) is in passing at best, and very light on useful details. And given the obvious dispute, I think we need better sourcing. Pinging Jsslee and ScrapIronIV who have participated in recent discussions. Any input from the BLP experts is well appreciated. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 02:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

As I have been personally threatened and insulted by these IP's claiming to be Kopald, I am not as neutral as others may be. All anyone can say is that there have been many patient editors who have tried to explain how Misplaced Pages works to this person, and he just doesn't understand. Until impeccably reliable, independent, third party sources can confirm his claims, they should be omitted from the article. If such sources are provided, I have no issues with including it. Some people understand what an encyclopedia is, and others don't. This individual falls in the latter category. He should be blocked on sight until he has a revelation, and renounces his legal (and personal) threats. Scr★pIron 04:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Spartan is a Boston-headquartered company. I live in Boston and am involved in the running community here. I've also have done photography work at Fenway Park to cover a Spartan event in the past. Through these activities, I've met Spartan Race employees, and I can say that opinion on the founders is divided. Some think that Kopald and Weinberg (and a half dozen other people) founded Spartan Race. Others think that it's Joe Desena's sole property. Look on Glassdoor's review of Spartan Race and you'll see that there is quite a lot of dissent among people who have (allegedly) worked there. Of course, there's no way to verify if any of those reviews are made by real employees or not. Bottom line, it's hard to know what exactly happened in the history of Spartan Race. The only information we have are the PR articles that this company has paid for through various news sites. And PR, isn't the most truthful source of information. If Joe Desena actually did oust his co-founders, he could easily have his marketing team pay for articles that speak a different tune. Jsslee (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I've also been personally threatened by Kopald, as has everyone who's tried to intervene (typical legal threat) in the past couple years. The user Jkxyz (talk · contribs) admitted or claims to be Julian Kopald, and it's abundantly clear that the IPs currently disrupting the article are the same user. However this isn't the venue for discussing one user's behaviour: my interest is in getting to the bottom of the content issues amongst the editors who are contributing in good faith. I agree with everything Jsslee has said here with regard to the clouded history of the organization and the state of available sourcing, both of which are why I'm insisting on high-quality sources for anything we do include. To that end I located an old draft of the article at User:Jkxyz/Spartan race that might be useful, I haven't had a good look at it yet. Ivanvector (/_Edits) 14:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Greg Osby

Greg Osby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The information that is repeatedly posted on this is not accurate, useful or relevant. It is also offensive. Especially since these are unproven ALLEGATIONS. This information is libelous, defaming and potentially unlawful. Jazzjock251 (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the information per WP:BLPCRIME. Not a wellknown figure and these are just accusations. The one source that was included is minimal. It is a small piece tacked onto an article about someone else also accused of sexual harassment at Berkeley. To be included in the article we would need much more coverage of the incident. The statement that he was fired was not mentioned in the source at all. ~ GB fan 18:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

List of federal political scandals in the United States

The introduction was a bunch of gibberish. For months it’s been removed and readded. The article falsely claimed that scandals had to involve a violation of law, which is not true for many Obama administration scandals. A terming of alleged legal but improper conduct as illegal is a major BLP offense. That introduction is not worthy to be part of an encyclopedia. 2606:A000:6444:4700:59D0:5215:432B:C56 (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Sikandar Shaheen

Sikandar Shaheen was one of the most versatile actor, who had a masters degree in English literature. Sikandar Shaheen also appeared in a film Bobby (1984) which was a diamond jubilee super hit film with Sri Lankan actress Sabeeta in leading role and Javed Sheikh as hero. Mohammad Ali was in supporting role as well. Sikandar Shaheen died on June 9, 2004 in Lahore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Ashiq Ali (talk • contribs) 15:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Where's the issue that anyone needs to address? You might consider taking it up with Misplaced Pages:Articles for Creation if you have not previously done so. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist _{(Follow my trail)} 07:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Mark Schwahn sexual harassment allegations

Mark Schwahn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Whether or not the amount of content about the Schwahn sexual harassment allegations is WP:Undue needs some looking at. I state this because he is not as famous as Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey and others affected by the Weinstein effect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Kept allegations, reduced verbiage and identification of so many other persons who are only marginally connected to the allegations. Collect (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Collect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

An editor with all of 25 edits basically restored the excess material and I am officially banned from touching it now on the BLP issue -- so will someone please address the matter? The article again links to a great many people tangentially involved, and goes to more detail than the entire rest of the BLP has! Thank you. Collect (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Already reverted by Darkness Shines. Obviously the article needs to be watched tho. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

BLP vio

Note: I have made a modest proposal to alleviate the spurious BLP concerns 1 poster has raised about this aricle: the article should be re-titled United States v. Joe Arpaio. This is the title of the Criminal contempt proceedings (distinct from, but arising from, the underlying case Melendez v. Arpaio, in which Arpaio was issued the order and found in Civil Contempt. Crimjnal Contempt creates a separate proceeding.) This should satisfy OP that the Article is not about Arpaio per se but is in fact about a legal case, and its legal implications for the pardon power, the constitutional questions raised, and the political implications of the pardon and the original conviction. Hence, BLP is not applicable. This would also have the advantage of giving us more scope to discuss the Contempt conviction, rather than merely the pardon, as well as the notable reports that Trump asked Sessions to drop the case, which might also be an impeachable offense. Finally, the case is itself clearly notable, and received significant attention in reliable sources such as newspapers and law reviews long prior to the Pardon, but there would be little reason to divide this notable topic into two articles, Pardon of Joe Arpaio and United States v. Joe Arpaio. A good case can be made that our naming conventions suggest that the title should be United States v. Arpaio rather than Pardon of Arpaio, as the only article we have titled “Pardon of X” is Pardon of Richard Nixon, which is legally unique in that Nixon was pardoned prior to any case being brought (I believe). We will also likely eventually have a general article on Trump’s pardons, as we do for other presidents, giving further reason to rename this article to the relvant legal case. Thus, renaming the article shoild satisfy OP’s dubious concerns, broaden the scope of the article, and allow us to put back in the legal analyses which keep being removed without worries about BLP being relentlessly used to remove sources of the article, while making clear to all editors that the article is no more about Arpaio than Marbury v. Madison is about Marbury or Madison. 2600:1017:B42E:45B4:B4B3:C34B:1771:55A1 (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The following allegation or what our readers could perceive to be a politically motivated "legal analysis" has been challenged as a BLP violation, especially considering it strays off-topic about the pardon itself and attacks the BLP. It was removed from the article twice. The editor who is now edit warring to keep it in, Softlavender, said in her edit summary that the article is not a BLP, seemingly to justify the BLP vio. Pardon of Joe Arpaio is already a highly volatile article that was relentlessly targeted by a persistent sock farmer and keeping it free of BLP vios has not been an easy road to hoe. Input, please? 13:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a violation. SPECIFICO talk 13:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a WP:BLP violation as a couple of editors have already told you. By the way, you're edit warring to remove scholarly content: - MrX 13:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

It's an RS-cited analysis of the Pardon of Joe Arpaio, which is what the wiki article is about and why we actually have the article (we have the article because the pardon generated too much controversy and analysis and objection to fit into any other existing article). The quote is actually a fairly standard analysis of the pardon and notes issues that were brought up by numerous legal and political analysts. Softlavender (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree for the following reason: the statement is riddled with noncompliant value laden labels and challenged as a BLP vio per WP:BLPSOURCE and WP:V because it contains "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." It is cited to a "Perspective" which is the author's POV about Joe Arpaio, and not about the pardon. The headline substantiates the latter: The problem with Joe Arpaio’s pardon isn’t the process. The problem is Joe Arpaio. The inclusion of the author's unsupported allegations are highly defamatory which dismisses any ambiguity that a BLP vio exists. 14:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Definitely not a BLP violation. It's well over the line into silliness to argue that Misplaced Pages may not contain material of that sort. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: Since when is The Washington Post a poor source? Also, the Cornell Law professor's view is supported by links throughout The Washington Post article. Did you think that no one would check? I have to say, you are teetering perilously close to being taken to AE so that your repeated provably false assertions and blatant misuse of policies and guidelines can be examined. I suggest you reel it in a bit.- MrX 14:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Technically, as that is under their "Perspectives" by-line, it is an opinion piece, not a news report, which should be avoided in contentious topics for facts, though here it is being used for opinion and attributed opinion, at that. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

So, not an issue - like everyone else (except Atsme) already said? It's not being used as a source for facts and no one appears to be suggesting that it should be. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The only issue I really see with it is a bit of coatracking attacks on Arpaio by the selection of the quote that attacks Arpaio; the 2nd last paragraph "In other words, Trump pardoned Arpaio because of his actions as sheriff, actions that are consistent with the platform on which Trump campaigned and has attempted to govern. Those actions were appalling — and not only is Arpaio unremorseful, but Trump has actually held him up as a model to be emulated" is a better summary that should be included since it's the core of Chafetz' point - Trump pardoned Arpaio because his actions were consistent with Trump's values, in Chafetz' opinion. The source is otherwise fine. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Masem, thank you for your thoughtful input. I'm of the mind that in addition to WP:BLPSOURCE, there is WP:REDFLAG which also applies in this case. The value-laden labels are defamatory and usupported. Racial profiling is much different from being a racist, especially when one's grandchildren are of the race a BLP is being accused of being racist toward. 17:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

“racial profiling is different from being racist” - that’s your opinion. Do you have a source for it? Please stop making WP: No legal threats about things being “defamatory” and throwing around words without knowing what they mean and playing alphabet soup. Who possibly cares about Arpaio’s grandchildren? This is a discussion of an important legal topic. You seem to think it should be a love poem to Jie Arpaio. It isn’t even about Arpaio. Your stunning inability to grasp this indicates the most blatant case of WP: Not here i have ever seen. Why don’t you just send a love letter to Arpaio and stop ruining the encylopedia? Thanks. Frankly, your conduct is disgraceful and has brought great shame to the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B408:14DF:F960:B127:D052:EB66 (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Sock's static IP and cell # have been reported. 18:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution