Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:06, 20 April 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

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

In this page link- https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Timmy_Tan, there seems to be gibberish information that seems to be poorly sourced, update: I removed the poorly sourced information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PattyDay (talk • contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PattyDay (talk • contribs) 01:00, April 3, 2017 (UTC)

Kendra Haste

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

I do not see how using that source violates BLP policy in any way, markdask. Can you please clarify? Cullen Let's discuss it 01:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply Cullen - btw I was the one supplied the ref initially. . Ironically it was the 20 uses of this ref (3) brought the war to an end. It was applied by an admin who separated me and A.N. Other who had been warring. I came here seeking an independent perspective as to whether or not the ref needed to be applied in every instance. Such use seems excessive to me - detracts from readability - how many articles have 20 uses of the same ref? I aint trying to prolong the war - that's over - I simply want to cleanup the page. Thanks again. Mark 01:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea how using a named reference 20 times is any sort of problem at all, assuming that the reference is comprehensive and reliable. I brought Harry Yount to Good article status, and used one reference 23 times. Granted, that is not a BLP but I see no BLP issues with using a reference 20 times. What is the readability issue? Letters of the alphabet? That is routine and standard. I fail to see any problem with it, markdask. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen - I'll leave it as is . Mark 13:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Everyone thinks they're the protagonist in an edit war. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• The only 'problem' with basing an article significantly off a single source is that it may demonstrate a lack of notability. (assuming there are no problems with the source itself). Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Neither article being discussed here relies only on a single source to establish notability, Only in death. Both have multiple sources that establish notability quite clearly. In the case of Kendra Haste, there are 24 references in the article. Each of these articles, though, uses one comprehensive source twenty or more times, because those sources are lengthy and detailed enough to verify many specific assertions in these articles. I repeat that I see nothing at all wrong with this. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:33, 13 April 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

Richard Hambleton

Richard Hambleton Hello, My name is Kevin Whipple. I work for Woodward Gallery in NYC. Woodward Gallery represents the artist Richard Hambleton. I am trying to correct his birthday on his wikipedia page. I have documentation to prove his corrected birthday. How do I go about correcting this?

Thanks, Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwhipple90 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kwhipple90: We generally can't include dates of birth unless they are widely publicised and known about anyway, for privacy reasons. I appreciate Mr Hambleton may be perfectly fine with people knowing his birthday, but we prefer to be consistent across the board, as you can never be entirely sure if somebody is happy with it, or will continue to be so indefinitely. Ritchie333 12:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

His date of birth is already posted on his Wiki page, however it is incorrect. I am trying to correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwhipple90 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kwhipple90: Okay, I have found a source for the correct DOB and added it to the article - can you check it's now correct? Ritchie333 13:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

That is correct! Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwhipple90 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, My name is Kevin Whipple I work for Woodward Gallery in NYC the gallery that represents Richard Hambleton. We noticed that his website was changed back to richardhambleton.com. However that is not his official website. His official website is actually richardhambleton.art which has all of his biographical information, artist resume, exhibition history, a large selection of his works and news articles of past and present. The other website is promotional material to a documentary film going on at the Tribeca Film Festival and is not his official website. How do I get his official site changed back to richardhambleton.art?

Thanks again for your help, Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwhipple90 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff

The president of Brazil is a public figure but even after making huge allowances for that and much effort on my part, this page is still really defamatory in my opinion. For what is is worth NPOV agreed. At the time I was trying to convince some editors that you can't call her account of events FRINGE because you don't believe it. Anyway, I came across this article as a truly truly bad machine translation and given an utter lack of willing Portugese speaker I and another editor I recruited have hammered it into something approaching English by dint of asking many many questions of a very patient Portuguese speaker -- however the article is still 90% or more prosecution case and that's after weed-whacking a bunch of weasel words. Someone was very concerned with making sure it is clear that a constitutional process was followed, which I can understand, but ... bottom line I need help, guys.

Can I please have some eyes on this article? I need to walk away for a bit because I just lost my temper over some new strange application of wikipedia policies. Thanks xoxxo Elinruby (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Matthew Dear

Matthew Dear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This biography contains heavily subjective and opinionated items, particularly in "History" paragraph 7: "Matthew Dears latest full-length, 2012’s Beams, was both a drastic departure from and worthy successor to Black City's gothic masterwork. A suite of weird, wild, and queasily optimistic rhythm-driven pop songs, Beams became the latest chapter in the continuing evolution of one of music’s most fascinating minds. After over a decade of exploring pops outer limits, Matthew Dear now inhabits a rarified corner of the musical universe: no longer tethered to any one genre, respected by his peers, and blessed with a bottomless well of creative energy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.32.76 (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Nelly Furtado

I've twice reverted, through pending changes, edits which say Nelly Furtado was divorced in 2016. In an interview on the TV show Loose Women, just a couple of days ago, Furtado said she'd split from her husband in 2016. She says she's "single" and that they "split", but there's no mention of divorce in the news articles reporting on the TV interview. None of the articles I've seen has independent reporting, they all reference the Looses Women interview. She may well be divorced, but I cannot find the word divorce, nor reference to any court proceeding, in any of the reporting. I know 3RR does not apply to BLPs, but I'm still reluctant to edit war over it. I'm going to leave a note on the talk page of the editor I've reverted and then go try to find a source that says "divorce" if one exists. I'd appreciate opinions about whether I'm being too hyper-technical about the difference between "split" and "divorced". David in DC (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you've made a sensible choice to come here. The burden is on the other editor to supply the source, and you are right there is a world of difference between simply splitting up and divorcing. I have blocked the other party for 24 hours, but will unblock as soon as I find evidence of a source. Ritchie333 15:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm going to look for a good source too. David in DC (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I can see a few tabloid reports today reporting a divorce, but nothing that I'd be happy to cite in a BLP. Ritchie333 16:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It's really quite sad that blocking happened to this editor since it looks and feels as though they were trying to do what was being asked by the subject themselves strictly from a good faith stand-point. I think a Talk Page explanation rather than just repetitious edit summaries could have aided in this miscommunication that really generated from the subject herself (specifically requesting the public to edit Misplaced Pages) and even the media. Regardless, this site specifically state: Nelly Furtado divorced after 8 years of marriage! "After 8 years of marriage, Nelly Furtado divorced her husband Demacio Castellon last year." (within the article) I think the problem here is, the subject herself keeps using the term "split", where she clearly means: "divorce". "Divorce confirmed": Singer Nelly Furtado confirms divorce from husband, "I"m single now" is not "separated" / "split"; Nelly Furtado divorce husband Demacio Castellon Split (more Divorce news); "The singer admitted that in order to survive the divorce, she wrote several songs"; Nelly Furtado divorce husband 8 years marriage. I think the editor was merely trying to do what they felt was correct with poor coverage and incorrect terminology. I would vote to lift the block and state that Furtado and Castellon are indeed: divorced. IMHO Maineartists (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

List of LiveJournal users

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Psychonaut and Doniago are both refusing to remove my name from List of LiveJournal users, and have so far failed even to add an annotation that my use of that site has ceased, despite repeated requests and despite the nonexistence of reliable secondary sources for including my name in the first place; see discussion at Talk:List of LiveJournal users. Further input from editors familiar with BLP policy would be appreciated. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, I wasn't refusing to do anything, rather, I was adding my two cents and waiting to see what consensus developed. I also suggested the compromise of adding an "Inactive users" sub-section which you neglected to respond to. I didn't add an annotation because I hadn't looked into the matter; is there a reason you couldn't add an annotation? DonIago (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I would have thought this was obvious, but the reason I haven't done it myself is WP:AUTOBIO. I would prefer to follow the recommendation there of using talk pages to request changes to content that is about me personally rather than making the changes directly. However, this instance shows yet again the shortcomings of that approach: in the rare case that there is someone actually paying attention to the talk page, they prefer to argue than to make the requested corrections. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Welecome to Misplaced Pages. Just because you request an edit, even to information regarding yourself, doesn't mean other editors are compelled to make the requested change. I consider that a strength of the project, not a weakness. DonIago (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I've weighed in on the talk page there. I don't feel it is sensible to complain about "the nonexistence of reliable secondary sources for including my name in the first place"; you know perfectly well the inclusion of your name in the first place was correctly reporting a fact. An editor's reaction to finding an uncited statement they know personally to be true should surely be to seek out a reference.

That said, it does seem sensible to address the spurious implication that you (and many others) are current users of the site and I have tried to do so. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

That complaint was a reaction to the other list editors' bizarre requests that I needed a source to get my name removed (or otherwise clearly marked as no longer an active user). It seemed hypocritical to me to demand a source for such an action when the article provides no source for the inclusion of any of its names. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I would imagine the argument for inclusion would be that the existence of the LJs was sufficient to constitute a primary source. That said, I'd be open to the argument that an LJ shouldn't be included unless a secondary source took note of it, but that hasn't been raised as an argument. I would also note that several entries already mention "deleted" and have had their LJ links removed, which seems sufficient to me. As I've noted, just because someone doesn't post on LJ now doesn't mean they shouldn't be mentioned as a past user, and the list as written perhaps implies but does not unequivocally state that it's intended to only reflect current usage. In fact, that several deleted accounts are on the list strongly implies the opposite is true. The issue of whether the list should or should not reflect current usage is one that should be discussed, but my feeling is that if the list was intended to only reflect current usage than the title is misleading. DonIago (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Like with any social media, the fact that any BLP is on that service under a certain tag/name should only be included on WP if secondary reliable sources have made that connect. Using LJ as the source is a primary source and fails the high requirement we use for BLP. --MASEM (t) 02:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I'm open to that argument, though it may result in a serious trimming of the article. I'm not saying that would be a bad thing, but I do think it's a consideration. DonIago (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

In contrast to something like Twitter, where there is regular coverage of people's tweets, and thus where it makes sense to have such a list (with the additional fact that Twitter has verified user status to help), what famous people do in LJ really has very little coverage, and if you use this secondary source requirement, you may end up with a very short list that can be added to the main LJ article. But it would certainly address the key point this thread started. --MASEM (t) 02:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Why on earth does this article even exist? It sure looks a lot like "Here's a list of famous people and their email addresses". It opens "Some users of LiveJournal, or the journals themselves, have become famous for their especially interesting content..." but then there is not one single reference for that assertion. Just a bare list of links.

At the very least, this article needs to have a ref for each entry where a reliable notable journal or similar has said "Smith's LiveJournal account has attracted lots of notice and views by people" or something. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It's been to AfD twice, though not since 2007 now. Perhaps it's time for a third go-round? DonIago (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

David, I would appreciate your correcting your claim that I "refused" to remove your name. On the talk page you made a request to nobody in particular that your name be refused. I responded by trying to start a discussion on the selection criteria for the list; this would help determine whether your entry on that page meets the existing criteria, and if so, whether it would be possible to reformulate the selection criteria in such a way that cases such as yours can be specially marked or removed.

Similarly, nobody told you that a source was required for the removal of your entry. You asked a vague question about reliable sourcing for the entries in the list. Reliable third-party sources are generally not required for trivially verifiable facts, such as the existence or non-existence of a website. Since your question implied that they were, I responded only that under this implication of yours (which again, I do not accept) it would not be possible to change an entry.

Could you try to explain in details what the specific WP:BLP issue is here? It seems to me that this is just a run-of-the-mill issue concerning verifiability, sourcing, and the list criteria, and probably would have been resolved on the article's talk page if you'd just let the discussion play out. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: This is the first I have heard about this article, and looking at it (even the article title), I have no idea why it exists other than as promotion for LiveJournal. We don't have a List of _____ users for any other item/brand/website that I am aware of, and the article gives zero indication that these people's use of LiveJournal is in any way encyclopedically notable any more than any notable person's use of any product, blogsite, micro-blogsite, website, or web host is notable. I've tagged it for notability, and I actually think it should go to AfD. Softlavender (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Then please nominate it again, which is an idea that someone else already raised on the article's talk page. Placing a notability template on a standalone list that has twice survived notability-based AfD is not particularly helpful. (Incidentally, we do have similar lists of users of certain products or services, such as List of YouTubers, List of Hagström users, List of Fender amplifier users. Some others, such as List of Twitter users, have since been deleted or redirected.) —Psychonaut (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    • List of YouTubers is clearly not the same thing at all, it is a list of YouTube celebrities. The other two articles you mention appear to be merely promotional of the brand and fancruft, just like this article, and show no independent notability. Softlavender (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion on the article's talk page. The BLP policy forbids the inclusion of contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and states that it must be removed immediately from the article. In this case, it has been pointed out that the information is not correct, and no sources have been provided to say that it is correct, so why is everyone being so pig-headed? Exemplo347 (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Come again? I found and posted a link to several third-party sources in academic journals establishing that David authored that LiveJournal blog. If the article is kept then I'll gladly restore the entry and add the sources. I wasn't about to do so while the discussion was ongoing. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I would not do that, since the spirit of BLP is such that if the person has requested the material be removed, there's a strong presumption to do so, even if it is true and can be proven true. Only if it is truly necessary to our core encyclopedic mission would we feel compelled to keep it. And I can't see the argument the it will materially harm the Misplaced Pages to remove that one entry from that one marginal article. Herostratus (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no particular objection to an article stating that I am a former LiveJournal user (it's true after all), although at this point it looks like the whole list is going away (a foreseeable consequence that made me reluctant to come here with my complaint, but not one I'm going to argue against). What I was objecting to was that, at the time I made the objection, the list did not clearly distinguish between current and former users, and continued to maintain a link to the obsolete location of my journal. So readers could easily infer, falsely, that I was still a LiveJournal user. The editors of the list were demanding sources before making any such distinction, but not making any similar demands for inclusion in the list in the first place. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

There's that claim again about the editors in that discussion demanding sources for the non-existence of your LiveJournal. For the third time, I never did that, and as far as I can tell, nobody else did either. I was still trying to figure out what you were even asking about when you escalated the issue here. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

You may not have requested sources for any change to the active status of an entry there, but Doniago certainly did. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Orlando Bloom

I have seen many false "facts" on Orlando Bloom's Misplaced Pages page and I took care of it but I would like to request a protection for this page because I think it is wrong for people to be able to put rumors as facts on a living person's page. Since it has happened more than a few times I would be thankful if someone made "Orlando Bloom" a protected page.

I don't know where to go for this problem so I am apalogizing if this is the wrong place to write about this request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.0.28.84 (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Generally, page protection such as you are requesting is dealt with at this link. There are instructions there for adding such a request. Thank you and good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Grover Covington

I am Chet Grimsley and played football and in the Sports Hall Of Fame I have known him since 1974 There is a person who put untrue hateful false facts as a daughter. She should be put on a watch list and Grover Covington son is a American Football Player for the Houston Texans Christian Covington and he also does not want this person putting unjustified facts of life events claiming to be Grover Covingtons Daughter and a sister to Christian Covington and slandering Grovers wife on Wikepidia.TheWhiteBull1956 (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

OK. Sorry about that. Someone (not me) removed all the material about his family, and since none of it was referenced and it's peripheral to his notability, that's probably best. I've put the article on my watchlist, and other editors might want to also. Herostratus (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Shajul Islam

Could editors please look this article over? --NeilN 17:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Steven Mnuchin

The article has been vandalized in at least two places, the opening line and the caption to the subject's picture.Ealtram (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

• Fixed. It might be worth a few more eyes on this article; the last two pieces of vandalism have stood for 30 and 20 minutes, long enough for Google to crawl them (a Google search currently still reads "Steven Terner Mnuchin is the current United States Secretary for screwing the average Joe". Black Kite (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Erik Prince

In this edit I removed a section discussing Erik Prince's meeting in the Seychelles which was alleged by "unnamed officials" in the Washington Post to "create a back-channel to Russia for Trump" but has been firmly denied by both Mr. Prince and the White House, as the source quotes: "Erik had no role on the transition team. This is a complete fabrication. The meeting had nothing to do with President Trump." Subsequently BullRangifer reverted the text and accused me of "blatant POV vandalism and a DS violation". Am I mistaken in calling this section a BLP violation? Was DHeyward also mistaken when removing the same story from Erik Prince's bio, arguing WP:BLPCRIME? — JFG 23:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I have already sought admin help to deal with this DS violation. See DS violations by User:JFG. DS violations and 1RR violation call for a block and possible topic ban. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Pres. Trump also said Manafort had nothing to do with his campaign. Should WP purge references to Manafort as Trump Campaign Mgr? SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous straw-man: Manafort was Trump's campaign manager for several months, so I don't see how Trump could say he had nothing to do with his campaign. Besides I have not removed any material pertaining to Manafort. — JFG 00:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought my meaning would be clear enough. When Pres. Trump's people get in hot water, he denies any association with them. E.G. last week, Trump downgraded Steve Bannon to just some guy who came along late in the campaign. SPECIFICO talk 00:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You are drifting further off-topic: the contested edit and my BLP/N question have nothing to do with Manafort or Bannon. Trump's utterances are also irrelevant to answer the BLP question on Prince. But for my education, I'd love to see where Trump claimed Manafort had "nothing to do with his campaign" or where he stated that Bannon is "just some guy who came along late in the campaign". Got sources? — JFG 00:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

They are to be treated like any hostile witness, IOW their word means less than nothing in these cases. Regardless, we document what RS say. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Because there's controversy over this meeting, WP:YESPOV must be followed, identifying this as a claim made by the Washington Post, and noting that the adminstration has denied this. Alternatively, because the nature of this meeting is in question, WP:RECENTISM may also apply and it may make sense to not include it until the full investigation by the FBI is completed. --MASEM (t) 01:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding the 3-4 word denial would have avoided the DS violation of the second revert. SPECIFICO talk 01:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem isn't the meeting, the problem is that Prince is the only named person. It's definitely negative and without knowing who was there. The UAE source is who thought it was a backchannel avenue but again unnamed. This was a one day newsstory that hasn't gained any traction and purely based on WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP regarding poorly sourced negative information, it needs to go. WaPo ran the story attributing to sources we can't identify and the lack of follow-up is indicative of an innuendo campaign that Misplaced Pages does not need to engage. More substance will arise if and when when it becomes noteable. --DHeyward (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This is silly - the story got front-page coverage in the Post and was widely covered by other major newsorgs too, so this is clearly something that the article (and Prince's article) should address. If there are BLP concerns, just add "on x date, the Washington Post reported that..., " note the denials, and maybe note that nbc et al also reported the same thing. There's an active rfc about the same issue (but with different proposed wording) at Erik Prince btw, strongly leaning to include at the moment. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Fyddlestix that this presents no BLP concerns. Of course we should appropriately include denials (a spokesman for Prince acknowledged there was a meeting, but said it "had nothing to do with" Trump), and of course we should carefully phrase it, but this is well sourced and highly relevant to the article topic. (The invocation of WP:YESPOV by one user, above, puzzles me: this is a front-page Washington Post news article, not some op-ed, but in any case adding the words "The Washington Post reported..." should assuage any doubt.) Our policy here is quote clear (WP:PUBLICFIGURE, part of WP:BLP):

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and 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."

That is what we should do here: document what the sources say, fairly and accurately. Neutrality 02:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but this BLP thread arose after the DS violation was pointed out. SPECIFICO talk 02:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Would you kindly stop talking about imaginary DS violations? You've been accusing me at least 5 times since January, all without merit. Time to drop the proverbial stick; much appreciated, thanks. — JFG 02:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't imaginary. You violated 1RR on an article under a 1RR restriction. When someone pointed that out, you came running here (without notifying the person who included the original text) and tried to make it a BLP issue (it's not).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I beg to disagree: no I didn't violate 1RR, and yes there is a BLP issue. After I removed this section from the Russian interference article, I noticed that another editor independently removed the same story from the Erik Prince article 10 days ago, with a BLP rationale, so apparently my reasoning is not unique to my little head, and coming to BLP/N for clarification is the appropriate forum. Oh, and please remember to bring your AGF towel next time you decide to dive into the pool with me. — JFG 07:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

"I beg to disagree: no I didn't violate 1RR" - 1 revert, 2 revert.

" I noticed that another editor independently removed the same story from the Erik Prince article 10 days ago, with a BLP rationale" - link? Cuz, ten days ago would be April 6th or 7th. I don't see anyone doing that. I do see your buddy Thucydides trying to gut the article in general but nothing about BLP.

My AGF towel is in the wash cuz getting bleached it's been so soiled by all the times I AGFed and then got burned.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Only the second edit (which you list first) is a revert, as already explained to my usual accuser.

If you bothered to read my initial post here before rushing to doubt my word, you could follow the link I provided. But I'm happy to repeat it for your convenience: . PS: Nobody is my "buddy".

I can understand that. Depends who you mingle with. I keep towels clean. — JFG 08:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

(aside) @VM: Looks like Thucydides411 never edited the Erik Prince page, so could you kindly strike your accusation of him "trying to gut the article in general"? — JFG 08:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I see, you were talking about the Erik Prince article, not the Russian interference article. Ok. But we are discussing your 1RR violation at the Russian interference article so you can't claim that that was ok because "someone else did it first". Additionally this "explanation" is not an explanation for your vio at all, but rather it's just a "go ahead and report me" taunt.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, this particular 1RR accusation has been repeated in so many places that I'm losing track. Here's where I have defended my edits. Now how about you strike your mistaken accusation of Thucydides? — JFG 15:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Just because a RS (the WaPost in this case) published something does not make it a fact, particularly when the people at the center of the issue can be also documented countering that accusation. This is not say the WaPost is right or wrong, but when there are highly controversial claims that haven't been proven out in a court of law or by proper authorities, we should be taking the most conservative (middle-ground, not political position) route per YESPOV and RECENTISM to avoid BLP and POV issues. Also, given that this is Yet Another Trump Admin vs the Press Issue, the idea of the "hostile witness" aspect of the media must also be kept in mind here (and its well known that WaPost are not happy with Trump, and vice versa). --MASEM (t) 02:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your first sentence — I've already said that we of course should identify any relevant denials, specifically.

Regarding your last sentence — this is more of a WP:RSN issue, but I very strongly reject the idea that we should discount news accounts from the Washington Post, the New York Times, or other extremely well-regarded sources out of some sort of sense that "they don't like Trump." The high-quality media is aggressive in its investigative reporting because (1) that's the job of journalists (to ask questions) and (2) because this is an unusual and complex point in U.S. politics in which there is more to investigate than ever before. The Post and Times have won many, many journalism awards and have a long and proud history of reporting the news. Should we avoid getting sucked into day-to-day back-and-forth on politics? Yes. But Misplaced Pages should certainly not fall into the trap of accepting the delegitimatization of the media, especially when it comes to stories of historic significance. Neutrality 03:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I never said we should dismiss them as reliable sources nor ignore what they say (though again, how relevant this story is within scope of RECENTISM should be taken into account). But we should avoid blind faith that just because these are established RSes that this must be taken as fact; this is even more so when we have 1) almost no other corroborating accounts, the story seems all based on WaPost's study and no one else's 2) there is documentable counterpoints/denials from the people accused by the WaPost 3) there is an established history of bitterness between the WaPost and the Trump admin. That's why my first point here: simply document this as an accusation made by the WaPost and to document the counterclaims by Prince and Trump's admin is the appropriate action under BLP and POV, rather than how it seemed to be originally added, as a claimed fact in WP's voice. (And if RECENTISM was used, we'd not be including this at all until its determined to have been relevant to matters in some years' time down the road). --MASEM (t) 03:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The WaPo is certainly a reliable news source. What they did is publish a one day story about a meeting. It has negative connotations with hints of an investigation by a law enforcement agency. What it lacks is "legs." What historic significance is known to us at this point? Prince had a meeting in Seychelles? We don't know who he met or what was discussed or why. We don't have any information on any investigation. Cut to the chase, the newsiness hook that makes this a story is that Prince is a provocative figure from Blackwater and the brother of Betsy DeVos. Either of those facts plays well to an audience that has already vilified both. The fact that the Russian he allegedly met with is unknown should raise giant red flags that this has less to do with the meeting and more to do with who Prince is. There is no historical merit in this news article until more details are learned. If it's encyclopedic, that will happen. If nothing more happens, it's not encyclopedic and we never should have included it. "Any day now" is not a valid argument for concluding it has historical significance. 90% of news is just news. We are not the outlet for single day news articles.--DHeyward (talk) 05:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the Washington Post's reliability. They have historically been very highly regarded, but recently, their quality seems to have gone downhill quickly. They've made some absolutely terrible decisions: publishing the PropOrNot article and hastily reporting that Russia had hacked Burlington's electric grid, when some rudimentary investigation could have alerted them to the fact that that story was bogus. The PropOrNot article was especially disturbing, because it lent legitimacy to what was essentially a McCarthyist attack on the press. Other outlets (like the New Yorker) thought that PropOrNot was an amateurish group making wild accusations, and wouldn't publish it, but the WaPo decided to go with it. The Washington Post is probably still mostly reliable to report simple facts, but with the very clear editorial line the paper has been taking, and the more than questionable decisions it's made recently, I think some caution is warranted with WaPo, especially if other outlets have not confirmed its reporting. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This has pretty much zero relevance to reliability. Both the electrical grid story and the PropOrNot story have editors' notes/corrections; this is exactly what high-quality sources do — make clarifications and corrections when there are mistakes. The Post has not retracted the Prince story; no other reliable sources have questioned the story's veracity; and indeed several of the actors agree on major points of the story. (For example, it's not in dispute that a meeting took place.) As to the claim that the paper has "gone downhill"—the Post won a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 2016 and 2017. Neutrality 22:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Neither the electrical grid story nor the PropOrNot story should have been published in the first place. The latter, especially, was extremely troubling. The WaPo put a story on its front page citing a McCarthyite blacklist at length. Even the retraction itself is problematic: the retraction tries to downplay the significance of PropOrNot to the article, even though the article relies heavily on PropOrNot, it doesn't renounce PropOrNot, and the article hasn't been edited to remove the PropOrNot citations. This is not indicative of a high-quality source. The WaPo ran a below-the-belt hit piece meant to imply that journalistic outlets that don't toe a certain line are Kremlin propaganda, and then when the WaPo got hit with a storm of criticism, it put up a one-paragraph explanation on its website.

I don't buy that the WaPo winning an industry award cancels out that sort of behavior. In the future, we should be very cautious about citing WaPo on issues where they now have a track record of publishing dubious material. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Note that WaPo reported it. As Masem pointed out, the relationship between Trumpworld and WaPo is pretty common knowledge. FWIW, I don't see a DS violation, just standard removal of content that would take place through organic bold editing. If someone thinks that DS were violated, take it to WP:AE. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The article is under 1rr FYI. SPECIFICO talk 03:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

WaPo is the only source that didn't derive the story from other coverage. Virtually every other news source referenced what the WaPo reported as an attributed conclusion. There is virtually only one source if we discount the eponymous phrase "According to the Washington Post..." there is only a single source. There is no independant coverage. It was a one day news story apparently highlighting how the Trump team, with all it's Russian connections needed a backchannel connection with a highly controversial, widely known person as well - and no one else named. It's a nutty conspiracy theory that started from what an UAE anonymous source said. --DHeyward (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

WaPo is independent coverage, no? And so what if other sources also quote WaPo? It just means that they broke the story. This happens with most stories - one outlet breaks it, then others repeat it and maybe add a bit to it. Sometimes more than outlet breaks the story at the same time and you got a couple of them, but this right here is pretty much how it ALWAYS works.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

As I said, WaPo is a reliable source but is the only source for this. No other details have broke. Compare it to say, the United Airlines flight incident. For days we had multiple, independant sources (independant from each other) breaking new information. Within days we had backfrounds on the passenger, updates on the officers, responses by United, stock market, etc, etc. This was a single source that had their attributed opinion repeated. Nothing new though. Two weeks and the WaPo story is the complete version. That leaves us with no justification for inclusionn. "It was in the Washington Post" is not enough to make the case for including a single day news blurb with negative BLP allegations. Think of it this way: How would Prince ever be vindicated if our standard was publish the first allegation using a single news article that mentions an investigation? There's not enough information to even conclude there will be a followup. We don't have a crystal ball to see if this will be significant or not. We would be left with an unsubtantiated accusation with no way to clear it. If it is significant it will generate more coverage. If it's not significant, the story will remain dead on the vine. Either way, it only deserves to be added if there is followup because I think any rational personal would conclude that the "next step" is what cements this addition. As it is, there is no nothing to write that doesn't require a follow up. He has meetings all the time with various nations and DUE weight for this one hinges on stuff we don't know. --DHeyward (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It is a BLP violation to report allegations against someone as if they were facts and furthermore we should follow the sources if they decide to publish denials because we are supposed to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." TFD (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

No. If source says "alleged" we say "alleged". If a source says "according to" we say "according to". We can also sometimes say "according to" and then name the source. But we don't decide what is "fact" and what is not "fact".Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes and if we stick to that we would be pitting the views of an unknown UAE government person and try to connect it to an FBI investigation without any details. And then we would conclude that our BLP sourcing policy would require us to wait before we publish this "connect the dots story." The WaPo does not claim causality or any connection, rather it provides facts on background without relating them to this meeting. When peeled, this onion is empty until there is a next a step. We routinely pass on publishing allegations prior to indictments especially when there is no indication that anything further will happen. --DHeyward (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're going on about. Nobody's peeling any onions. Nobody's pitting any views. Or plums. Or fighters. Or stops. Nobody's trying to connect anything. Though if you get four in a row you win. And what the hey does "causality" have to do with anything here? Causality of what? You are simply interpreting what a reliable source says in some strange manner and then claiming we can't use it. Some weird new twist on doing original research it seems - some kind of "if my original research is cryptic and incomprehensible enough, maybe no one will notice I'm doing original research" tactic. Look, we stick to what the source says. If it says "alleged" we use "alleged". If it says "according to" we say "according to". Etc.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

As soon as a reliable source comes out that says any of the things you mentioned we can add it. But that hasn't happened yet. --DHeyward (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey User:JFG, thanks for notifying me since I'm the one who added the text you're removing. Oh wait! You didn't? Gee...Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I didn't check history before removing that stuff (and other stuff with it) – just doing an article cleanup pass. No offense! — JFG 07:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• My personal feeling is: I don't personally see that this falls under WP:BLPCRIME, as no specific crime per se is being alleged or charged; merely illicit or suspicious activity. WaPo isn't stating "Eric Prince committed X." Mention that the WaPo (which is definitely a RS) reported the actions/activity (and that Prince denied it). WP:NOTCENSORED. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• They said a police agency is investigating the meeting. It's the newspaper way of inferring a crime may have been committed with no way to ever remove the investigation. The FBI investigates crimes and if we learned anything from the election, "investigation" is an accusation. The FBI purposefully mentioned the end to the investigation of Clinton emails to remove the cloud. Re-opening the investigation was met with lots of backlash. Saying that the FBI is investigating a meeting is indeed covered by WP:BLPCRIME and unless there is more followup, there isn't enough to casually toss that into the article based on the WaPo's one day news story. Normally, the FBI doesn't announce investigations (and they didn't comment for the story) or when they close so if it's nothing, we may never hear another word. We don't park dark clouds on BLPs precisely because of this. --DHeyward (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Again, neither WaPo or the wiki article are alleging any crimes. The meeting clearly took place, as the information came from U.S., European, and Arab officials, who also revealed the results of the meeting and the planned follow-up meetings which were subsequently dropped. Moreover, the wiki article in question is Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, not Eric Prince. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• While there is no technical crime committed, it is clear they (the WaPost) seen this as something treasonous and are calling out his role, particularly if it is proven that Russia interfered in the election. It's not a crime, yet, by any book, but we should be a lot more aware of what the WaPost is trying to pin on him, and even if BLPCRIME doesn't specifically apply, BLP does. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

"it is clear they (the WaPost) seen this as something treasonous" - people! Really, freakin' read WP:NOR again. If it was "clear" then they'd freakin' say it. But they don't, so it's not "clear" how they "see it". Maybe they don't even "see" anything, maybe they are just reporting a story of interest. Stop trying to read the source' mind.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

As soon as you find something worth reporting, we'll add it. But as you noted, the mental gymnastics required to see this as notable are too much without multiple independent sources making a notable claim/finding/whatever. Hasn't happened yet, though. --DHeyward (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

NOR applies to what goes into an article as in we cannot include our own OR), but we are allowed (and in fact, do all the time) use original research on talk pages and discussions to evaluate sources and claims made about those sources to determine how to apply policy to them and include (if appropriate) as content. No source is going to tell us if something is a BLP violation, for example, that's something of our own invention. And in a case like this, it is perfectly acceptable to consider the nature of the story and identify that it falls within WP:YESPOV as a highly controversial claim with counterstatements available, so we should treat it as such. Too many editors suggest applying a blind eye to sources, which makes us an echo chamber of non-objective journalism that exists today, when to stay neutral and objective, we have to understand the larger picture and use appropriate caution (eg attributing statement rather than assuming as facts) while we still are within the RECENTISM window. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to add my two cents here, unneeded though it may be: the mere fact of this publication on the front page of the Washington Post is, in and of itself, notable. That's one reason why the coverage in the post was mentioned in multiple other publications. I think properly couched, the information deserves to be both in the "Russian interference" article and likely in the BLP. I would say that whether factual or not, the whole episode of publication is worthy of inclusion. But I also think we're straying a bit here from WP:Verifiability. I think it's best when we are agnostic as to "fact." Fisking sources beyond their reliability is a dangerous road to trend, in my opinion. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• In today's media, and with how we have defined our reliable sources, we absolutely need to be more cognizant of what is happening in the media circles if we are going to post information as soon as it is reported in light of WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM. If editors weren't so much in a rush to post these types of news story and instead wait several months or years before determining if they were valid, then we'd not have to worry too much about the source. But if editors want to rush in and add, all the elements of RECENTISM must be taken into account. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

"all the elements of RECENTISM must be taken into account" - Yeah like this one "Recentism is a symptom of Misplaced Pages's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has positive aspects as well—up-to-date information on breaking news event".Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Masem, again, I think you are overly focused on "fact." Misplaced Pages is a distillation of reliable sources, and so, will occasionally be "wrong" since even the most reliable source is not infallible. The standard is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even "preponderance of the evidence." The standard is verifiability, which here means the claim is traceable to an agreed-upon reliable source. Whether it is "valid" or not is beyond our bailiwick. If we waited for claims to be 'proven,' Misplaced Pages would be much poorer for it. Now I quite agree that since there is a dispute here as to the meeting, we should cite the source -- "The Washington Post said/Erik Prince said," but I don't see a cognizable reason for jettisoning the material entirely. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

VM: Recentims works fine when the event is actually occurring and a lot of eyes are on it, such as disasters or terrorist attacks, or even things like the United Airlines incident last week (the only issue that then is a problem is notability per NEVENT). Here the media is simply documenting without commenting, so there's no question that we should also be able to document these at the same time. Where RECENTISM is a problem is a situation exactly like this WaPost report, it's not an activity current event (these meetings were in the past), and they had little visibility or corroboration from other sources. Yet it is being treated like breaking news. It's not, and because it is presently unclear how it fits into the larger picture of the Russian involvement of the US elections, we should be a bit skeptical if it is needed right now.

Dumuzid, "If we waited for claims to be 'proven,' Misplaced Pages would be much poorer for it." I strongly disagree, because of the general rush for people to use en.wiki rather than Wikinews to cover breaking news despite WP:NOT#NEWS, we are much worse off, we are failing to consider the encyclopedic nature here and instead acting like a newspaper. It is much much better for stories of questionable nature to adopt the wait-and-see approach, rather than force every juicy detail into a heated story like this. I don't have a serious problem if the information is kept as long as, as you say, attribution and counterclaims are included as that takes the bite off any BLP issues, but if it were up to me, I'd simply wait for inclusion until we knew how these meetings impacted the larger story and avoid the BLP issue altogether. Readers really interested in the whole picture around the election interference can research elsewhere to get more details than we opt to provide. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Masem, we've been around on this before, and I don't mean to belabor the point, so I'll be brief. The article is notable in and of itself, whatever the facts behind it turn out to be. We certainly should not report it as settled fact. But keeping it out entirely is, to me, a disservice. Reasonable minds can differ. And sometimes almost-reasonable minds, like mine. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

To me, BLP's core premise is all about being cautionary towards inclusion if the material may be seen as harmful, regardless of how widespread the information may be. We are not trying to be a news service here and there's no DEADLINE to get it right, hence why I'd lean against inclusion for the time being, but if it has to be included, making sure to frame it as an assertion and not hard facts (again, a cautious approach) --MASEM (t) 16:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Note: This isn't really recentism. The meeting, which was confirmed by U.S., European, and Arab officials (who also revealed the results of the meeting and the planned follow-up meetings which were subsequently dropped), occurred more than three months ago, before the presidential inauguration. The WaPo article is simple, straightforward, and neutral: . -- Softlavender (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The recentism is not related to the meeting itself, but what it means in the larger picture, and that's where, in lieu of having the full knowledge of what (if any) actions Russia had in the election, this is jumping the gun. Ideally, as WP editors following RECENTISM, we'd wait until a final report had been written by the FBI/CIA/whatever organization, documenting the full extent of Russia's involvement, and then come back to actually add content to WP at the relevant articles in light of what the final report said, avoiding any intermediate claims and suppositions made by the press and others that were not involved with the investigation. (Here, while the WaPost doesn't actually say it, they are clearly highlight this meeting as a pivotal point to presume Trump's admin was involved with Russia's interference, which is supposition.). Thinking how the articles will look 10-20 years down the road would tell us this is the best approach. Unfortunately, editors do not follow this, and so they are jumping the gun on any bit of news, and in that light, we must be taking these sources with a bunch of grains of salt since they are not the authority here to determine if there was interfere or the guilt of anyone involved. That is how RECENTISM applies here, to think about what the pertinence is of the information, of which most of this is just a lot of hand-waving rather than anything concrete and thus reasonable to consider for exclusion for the time being. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender: The WaPo is a collection of disjoint pieces. For example, the paragraph The United Arab Emirates arranged a secret meeting in January between Blackwater founder Erik Prince and a Russian close to President Vladimir Putin as part of an apparent effort to establish a back-channel line of communication between Moscow and President-elect Donald Trump, according to U.S., European and Arab officials. isn't saying that all facts are corroborated by all the officials. The "apparent effort" part is only attributed to UAE who were interested in getting tough on Iran and "apparent" is a qualifying word for opinion (i.e. apparent to whom? - UAE is the only entity named as having a goal of creating a back channel). UAE source said it was based on Prince presenting himself as an unofficial envoy of Trump but they expressly say the backchannel was UAE's goal, not Prince's. It's not stated how this was accomplished. The Russian is not named. The "former U.S. officials" involved in briefing the Trump team were political appointees from the Obama administration charged with transition and left after inauguration. WaPo is very vague on exactly who is confirming various aspects. That is crucial for attribution. It's sloppy to say "U.S., European and Arab officials" followed by just "officials" when they have various pieces that are specific to certain sources. --DHeyward (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

You're misreading that. The sentence makes several assertions as a whole and then concludes "according to U.S., European and Arab officials". The officials also revealed the results of the meeting and the planned follow-up meetings which were subsequently dropped. I have no desire to repeat this again, so this is my last comment on the matter. Softlavender (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

So given all the thoughtful discussion above, it seems clear that there is no BLP violation with the content and that removal of that content, although it may arguably be contested for other reasons, is not entitled to the safe harbor of BLP with respect to 1RR restrictions. SPECIFICO talk 16:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it's pretty clear there is a substantial BLP issue and the precautionary principle applies. --DHeyward (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Just wanted to offer another data point, from Bloomberg: Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumuzid (talk • contribs)

That's a good example of a non-objective article, reading almost as an attack piece, unlabeled with any op-ed statement (and I would normally take Bloomberg as reliable), which we should be cautious of using under BLP and RECENTISM. Statements like "Among those his aides turned to was Prince, a man whose specialty is paramilitary security forces, and whose company is best remembered after its employees were convicted of killing Iraqi citizens, including children, in the notorious 2007 Nisour Square gun battle.", while factually true, set the tone early that the writers have no respect for Prince (as they are focusing on those details early on), and as suggested above, should be considered like a hostile witness, bringing into question if we should be trying to document that meeting now, but at least assigning it as attributed claims and counterclaims. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh please, Bloomberg is a RS with a large amount of weight, and that's clearly a news article not an opinion piece. Deal with it. The amount of IDONTLIKEIT and the OR criticisms of obviously weighty RS in this discussion is ridiculous. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Normally yes, but this is an example of subjective reporting, the "new norm" that is prevalent in all RSes today. There are clearly opinion statements nestled among statements of fact, so we have to be very careful about using the source blindly and accepting everything as fact. Again, I've said that it seems fine to include the meeting as long as, to avoid BLP issues, the existence of it is attributed to the WaPost and the counterclaims are included, but realistic, this is why more than ever RECENTISM should be considered and avoid documenting new information that has been brought to light until the larger context is well documented by authoritative figures on the matter, as to avoid any potential BLP. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

So, should we be running all RSes by you Masem, or is there a list of publications which we should pre-clear with you? Dumuzid (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No, but as I've mentioned elsewhere, editors need to be aware that 1) this type of news reporting exists and is prevalent through media today as the new norm, 2) that editors use common sense and consensus to understand when such articles are engaging in opining rather than reporting, when it comes to evaluating BLP and POV (noting that opinions can still be included, but they have to be marked as such) 3) that editors need to be aware of their own personal bias that may tint how they see such articles (eg: if an editor really really dislikes Trump, they will probably see no issue with that Bloomberg article since it aligns right with that disliking) and 4) NOT#NEWS, DEADLINE, and RECENTISM are very good reasons not to rush and document every single event in a current story if the reporting media is not remaining objective about it or the situation is clearly contentious. Prince's situation here is just one example that we're failing as an encyclopedia because we're not waiting for the long-term picture but instead trying to be a news desk, and thus pushing on the bounds of what BLP would be accepting. It's a global awareness that has become severely lacking over the last few years. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Rumors and innuendo are not encyclopedic and WP:BLP applies to all equally regardless of politics. Masem is simply reiterating guidelines in WP:IRS, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP. This should be uncontroversial. Exclude. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, Mr. Lambden, it certainly becomes uncontroversial when you remove comments with which you disagree. Enjoy your day. Dumuzid (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Masem, this board is strictly for BLP issues, and it's clear there is no such violation here. The other issues belong on the article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 17:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, to be fair, many have gone a bit far afield (myself definitely included). But I think you're right. There are better places to carry on the conversation. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I can see that you are a thoughtful contributor here. In general, I am disappointed in how BLP threads recently have devolved into general content or behavioral disputes, and this one is full of it. The origin of this thread has been duly noted by various editors above and need not be rehashed. SPECIFICO talk 17:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

However, I still think there is a resolvable BLP issue here. Contentious claims about BLP needs exemplary sourcing, and the claim that this meeting by Prince was to connect Trump and Russia is contentious so we do need to evaluate the sourcing. And arguably, while we are talking normally RSes in the WaPost and Bloomburg, the quality of writing on these particular articles does not inspire confidence that these are to be taken objectively, and thus begs if they are "exemplary sourcing" to meet BLP's requirements. And this is the type of thing that needs to be done for many recent BLP/N entries, instead of assuming blind faith that "this RS published it, thus cannot be a BLP violation". --MASEM (t) 18:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe, but of course OP did nothing to try to find better sourcing or better conformity to the cited references, and instead deleted the content. SPECIFICO talk 19:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

While in good faith I would assume the OP tried to look for corroborating sources, if there were none to be found (and this does appear to be the case, Bloomberg's still referencing the WaPost report), and the material appears contentious, BLP says it should be removed and discussed before readding. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

OP speaking: I did look for further sources and noticed they all referred back to the WaPo piece; I found none with independent reporting which would confirm some of the innuendo with hard facts. To be clear, the WaPo report says that a meeting happened and proceeds to speculate on the meeting's agenda and outcome based on hearsay, therefore it is not encyclopedic. Repeating on Misplaced Pages the accusation that Erik Prince was somehow complicit in an unspecified geopolitical plot related to the Trump administration would constitute a BLP violation, hence my decision to 1) delete the material per precautionary principle 2) refer to BLPN for guidance. After a few days of abundant discussion here, there seems to be an equal split between commenters who see this story as a BLPVIO (JFG, Masem, DHeyward, Thucydides411, TonyBallioni, TheFourDeuces, James J. Lambden) and commenters who don't (BullRangifer, Specifico, Fyddlestix, Neutrality, Volunteer Marek, Softlavender, Dumuzid). When in doubt, we should be cautious and keep the material out. — JFG 07:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not a vote, and a lot of the "leave it out" arguments are either OR, misrepresent the sources, or have no basis in policy - as has repeatedly been explained. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• This is not even close to being a WP:BLP violation and there is no reason to remove it from the Russia election interference article or Prince's bio. It has been reported in several reputable sources at this point. I would suggest omitting the speculation about why he was not in Trump's inner circle ("...and although his past affiliation with Blackwater most likely made him too controversial to be considered for a formal appointment or an official adviser position,..."), in the Russia election interference article.- MrX 12:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually, that's not true. There is exactly one source for the existence of the meeting, being WaPost: every other RS reporting on the meeting refers back to WaPost's story. And I'll point out the previous evaluation of the WaPost story by DHeyward that show that alone it is questionable and does beg BLP; it's not as black and white as some editors suggest it should be. Now there is a secondary story here: it is the reaction to the WaPost story, which is the fact it gained attention across the media, and that Prince and many others denied the allegation from the WaPost it was connected to linking Trump and Russia. That itself is a verifiable news story. But at this point, it is just brickering between the media and the Trump administration, and that's why, per NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM we shouldn't be rushing to try to include it until the full weight of the implications of the meeting are known (likely as a result of the current investigation into the election interference), as both encyclopedically it it poor content at this stage, and it is precautionary to keep extraordinary claims (that of the WaPost) about BLP out of WP. We should not be trying to document petty squabbles between two political sides that have no immediate bearing on the world at large. --MASEM (t) 13:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

"two political sides" ??? what? No politics on the table here. SPECIFICO talk 14:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

This is absolutely a politically driven issue. Those on the left (which includes the press) that deplore Trump want this Russian interference to be a real thing that they can use to contest the results of the election, and the Republicans are having to defend themselves. And having Trump have contacts with Russia as to engage in interference, on presumption this was true, is purely a politically driven goal to win the election. Right now, because we have no idea what actually happened throughout the course of events, this issue with Prince and other issues around it are all bickering to try to gain public support for their side. Something we should not be trying to engage in. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

"The world at large," Masem, is OR. We should be trying to document what is in the reliable sources to the extent of Misplaced Pages's remit. Dumuzid (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Within the context of WP:NOT, which includes WP:NOT#NEWS (and again why RECENTISM exists). We should not be trying to document every news story, even if its in context of a larger notable event, especially when it is one that lacks the ability for multiple sources to corroborate and objectively observe the situation (as would be the case for a disaster or terrorist attack). This is a battle of words, and we should be waiting for the smoke to clear - that is, when the final report on the investigation into Russia's role - before trying to document every tiny element in detail, so that we avoid NOT and BLP issues. --MASEM (t) 15:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Masem You are correct, if your definition of source is "a publication that investigates and breaks a story". For Misplaced Pages purposes. a WP:SOURCE is any independent publisher that we deem to be reliable based on their reputation for fact checking. The fact that the Washington Post article was cited by CBS, CNN, Bloomberg, and the Boston Globe amplifies the credibility of the Washington Post as explained in WP:USEBYOTHERS. Also, Bloomberg expanded on the original story with their own research. The article does not violate any of the four examples of WP:NOTNEWS. Misplaced Pages considers the enduring notability of persons and events. This scandal has persisted for months, with new revelations on an almost daily basis. The media is not a political side, but if you think it is, I at least understand why you have taken the position you have.- MrX 15:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The interference story is certainly enduring and we should cover it, but individual elements may not be, such as Prince's role in the events (as we only have WaPost's claim that the meeting was tied to it), hence why this is a failure of NOT:NEWS to document every twist and turn of the interference story, as we don't know yet if those elements are enduring themselves. That's where RECENTISM expands upon where we shouldn't be trying to document this at this level of detail now if there's potential harm (in this case, BLP) to it. Consider the Watergate article, that it is written with strong sense of 20/20 hindsight rather than as the news broke and coverage intensified. That needs to be the ultimate goal for the Russian Interference article once the story is completed, and the current PROSELINE approach to add every breaking event does not help.

And absolutely the press is part of the politics here, given the current spats between some like the WaPost and Trump, among several other issues; the media today is a far different beast than it was a decade or more ago. It does not help to ignore political connotations of stories published by the WaPost (or any of these other papers that Trump has blacklisted) in light of their spat with Trump; it does not unmake them an RS in general, but does require us to use caution on this particular article. And I do want to stress: the fundamental facts that the WaPost story has - that Prince had a meeting oversees at a correlating point in the scandal's timeline - don't seem to be in dispute, but it is it the implications of that meeting and ties to the Russian interference, where WaPost is making their educated guesses, that is highly questionable. It may be true, it may not be, but until we have an authoritative source to state it, we should be handling that claim with extreme caution since it does involve a living person and highly contentious claims. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Well Masem, all we can do as editors here is to check and evaluate the mainstream view and give it due weight in the article. The mainstream free American press is leftist? If that's your view, I suppose you might also think that WP or our editorial pillars are leftist, but that discussion belongs on another page if you believe our policies are dysfunctional. Anyway, that view would not be an excuse for violating 1RR, which is the real editing question on the table here. SPECIFICO talk 15:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

To the bottom line, an editor thought a statement was a BLP violation, removed it (on April 16), it was reverted, but it wasn't re-reverted further. They started this talk page discussion, and after 3 days, removed it again still on the stance that it was a BLP violation. Where's the 1RR violation? It's not a "true" 1RR with the 3 day spanse, and there is legitimate concern there is something with BLP involved in the edit, which is an exemption if one honestly believes there is a major BLP issue at play. Perhaps JFG should have waited a bit, but I certainly don't see a hard 1RR violation here under the DS. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Check that, I see there was an earlier edit that including the Prince section among other issues. That said, at the point JFG reverted only the Prince section, they still cited concerns with BLP (which as this discussion shows, wasn't 100% either way and needed discussion), which is still exempted under even 1RR. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)When he removed this bit at 23:20, 16 April 2017‎ it was his second revert within 24 hours. Another editor notified him of that violation. Instead OP filed this thread after he was called out on his violation. He is continuing to edit war this bit out of the article, despite his defense having failed here. I'm not going to get deeper into that editor's history, as such is not the purpose of BLPN. SPECIFICO talk 16:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, if an editor has a strong opinion that something is a BLP violation, (as JFG said at the 23:20 edit summary), that is exempt from 1RR. The only next time it was removed was 3 days later, on the unclear result of this discussion, which may be questionable if this discussion had a conclusive answer to remove, but it was far outside 1RR and still based on BLP issues. I would point out that despite agreement here by those wanting to keep the information, that identifying this story as claims from the WaPost, nor the counterclaims by Prince and the Trump admin, have not been properly added yet, still making it part of a BLP issue but one that is easily resolved. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

You're an admin, so I wish you wouldn't spread misinformation about policies. A bona fide BLP violation is a legitimate exception to edit warring. A strong opinion is not. Editors have been topic banned for such behavior. JFG's repeated removal of this content, even after this discussion substantially rejects his claims of BLP violation, suggests an obstinance that frequently results in a trip to AE.- MrX 16:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I am well aware that my contributions on procedure are worth even less than those on substance, but I would say that I don't see this as necessitating punitive/deterrent/corrective action. While I certainly find some arguments more persuasive than others, I would chalk this one up to "reasonable minds can differ" and move along trying to get a consensus on how we will deal with the information. Thanks, I think. Dumuzid (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The BLP issues are real and not rejected by this discussion. Not by a long shot. The source even has to bend some pretzels to implicate all their apparent targets. (WaPo initially says the meeting was arranged solely because of statements by Prince to UAE, then they state that the meeting would not have happened without direct approval by Trump and Putin. Can't be both but implicating both Trump and Prince for the same meeting required a logical fallacy.) We have one source on a single day alleging this was improper with no followup. That's not enough to satisfy BLP requirements particularly regarding Prince.--DHeyward (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to descend into minutiae here, DHeyward, but your logical fallacy doesn't strike me as such, either as you present it, or re-reading the article. Just food for thought. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Of the 15 editors commenting here, five editors (JFG, Masem, DHeyward, Thucydides411, and James J. Lambden) believe that the content violates WP:BLP. Two editors (TonyBallioni and TFD) have not voiced an opinion about whether the specific content violates WP:BLP. Eight editors (BullRangifer, SPECIFICO, Fyddlestix, Neutrality, Volunteer Marek, Softlavender, Dumuzid, and MrX ) believe the content does not violate WP:BLP. All commenting editors are experienced and have made reasonable, policy-grounded arguments. A significant majority of editors in this discussion do not view the content as violating WP:BLP.- MrX 18:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

And some of the exculpations of JFG's deletions seem downright weird to this observer, mostly relating to the BLP Five's denigration of the mainstream US press (WaPo) or their personal convictions that they are not only WP editors but are also qualified and authorized to improve on WaPo's editors' oversight of that distinguished publication's raw reporting. SPECIFICO talk 18:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, yes, as editors, we do have the ability to evaluate controversial material published by even the highest of RSes and make sure if it appropriate to include at the current time given that we are looking at the long-term coverage of a topic and not day-to-day, or if it is one of those topics we should not include because of other policies like NOT or BLP. We are not to be narrow minded nor are not beholden to take controversial statements at face value per WP:YESPOV; we can't change or disprove what they say, but we can make sure that inclusion identifies such statements as claims and not facts. But this all requires that editors avoid blinding accepting everything an RS says as fact. RSes can be wrong, RSes can opine or speculate in everyday news reporting, and that's what is happening with the WaPost article here is that they are making controversial conclusions that affect a living person from disparate sources; it's not a completely-off-the-wall conclusion, and they have fair justification for why they present that conclusion, but it is still speculation and paints the BLP in a harmful light if they are true. At minimum it must be reported as a claim to the WaPost along with the counterclaims. Preferably, I'd not include it until we knew the full extent of its importance as part of how we are meant to summary historical events and to respect the caution needed for BLPs; however, I do recognize there is a strong desire to include it by those actually working on the article, and accept that as long as the attribution to WaPost is made along with Prince's and others counterclaims, it at least is not a glaring BLP to include at this time. --MASEM (t) 18:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

(Sincere) Thanks, Masem. So, would those of you opposed to inclusion be okay with a short line or two, explicitly sourcing the claim to the Washington Post, and explicitly including the denials? Any chance we could reach consensus around something like that? Dumuzid (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that something like that would be okay - a short line or two, with attribution to the WaPo, including the denials. The problem right now at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is that there's an entire section on Erik Prince, without explicit attribution to the WaPo, and everything is stated as if it were established fact (e.g., "the purpose was to establish a back-channel link between the Trump team and the Kremlin"). -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Short answer: yes, I am fine as long as attribution and counterclaims are included per Thucydides's comment. That gets past any immediately major BLP-affecting problem. The secondary issue of whether we should be covering this now in the first place is far less a BLP issue, something I would hope is considered, but does not need immediately attention. --MASEM (t) 21:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin

• Arthur Rubin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article and its talk are occasionally used by people wanting to poke the person who is an editor and admin. Please have a look at diff where an IP is insisting on "hopelessly unemployed" with other pointed commentary. AfD#5 and AfD#4 provide some background. Johnuniq (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

If it's mainly IPs and driveby accounts (and I haven't checked), perhaps longterm semi-protection is the way to remedy the situation. Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Edited to add: Update: It's really only the talkpage that gets negative attention -- there have been zero problems at the article itself that I can see. Therefore I think this is simply a matter of a few dedicated editors keeping the article on their watchlists, which already seems to be the case. I don't think anything needs to be done here unless diffs can be provided of any damage to the article itself within the past 12 to 24 months. Softlavender (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and agreed. The IP's soapboxing has been removed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

And from here, as well.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Swami Nithyananda

Swami Nithyananda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

3 months ago, the article used to look like this. Since that time:

• All positive material has been deleted:

• 1) Works Previous (Google Goodreads Amazon)
• 2) School (Hindu University of America: Chairman Nomination Nithyananda Gurukul )
• 3) Registered Non-Profit Organizations (Canada:CRA.GC.CA US:IRS.GOV)
• 4) Relevant Commentary (BLP:Rajiv Malhotra Narendra Giri Ji

• Extensive defamatory material sourced to tabloids like this: Swami Nithyananda, Sex and the Single Swami has been added.
• Properly sourced edits (example: Watkins Spiritual List) are immediately removed
• The opening line states that this LP founded an "e-commerce" site.

• 1) His website does not have a store on it
• 2) How can an e-commerce site account for the Millions of $ mentioned in the Finance section?

• "e-commerce website" cannot be true as of now and in no way represents the current state of this LP
• There is a big joke that trollers are playing here!

• 3) He Founded the Nithyananda Peetam

• The article states LP's name as:"Swami Nithyananda Mudaliar". I can't find a single source on the internet with this name.

• 1) His name is Paramahamsa Nithyananda Search

Summary:

• This page has a loooooong history of tug-o-war between puffery and defamation with heavily emotionally charged people who should no longer be allowed to edit this article. Right now it's heavily tilted to defamatory which I think is inappropriate to this LP.
• Compare this page to other much hated celebrities like Donald Trump and Asaram and it's clear that some Trollers are having a good laugh over what they've done here!DocTox (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The version from 3 months ago was pretty crappy -- not least the sources (self-published stuff, Amazon, Youtube, Goodreads, etc.). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yup, I agree completely. As I mentioned - back and forth between puffery and defmation. It's almost constant for both sides - look at the recent edits on the page. DocTox (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

How to remove the "template message" for citations in this page https://en.wikipedia.org/Eric_Mun

Hello. Could anyone kindly help me how to remove the "template message" for citations in this page https://en.wikipedia.org/Eric_Mun

I'm willing to add citations if they're indeed missing but I don't know where citations need to be added. Very appreciated for any help anyone could offer so I can remove that "template message" for good.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by My sunrays (talk • contribs) 00:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done--@My sunrays:--If you engage in source-code editing this is the guide.Otherwise in visual-editing mode, place the cursor at the end of the phrase/sentence you wish to attribute a source to and click on the cite button at the visual-editor taskbar.Enter the website(or manually enter the details of any off-web source) and click insert.Voila!The citation will get included.As a side note WP:HELPDESK is a better place to ask these technical questions.Winged Blades 12:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Ann Louise Gittleman

Could the editors please take a look at my requested edits for Ann Louise Gittleman? I have attempted to address the opinion and bias expressed in the BLP page. The tone and balance of some of the statements do not comply with WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV. These edits likely need assistance from administrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnh429 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think the responding editors there have pretty much summed up the issues with your proposed edits. Incidentally, can you tell us what you mean by the statement "Our proposed edit (and as revised) factually represent responses that experts have given to Gittleman’s work...". "Our"? Black Kite (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  Mnh429 has disclosed a financial conflict of interest, which I assume is why "our" is used.

  Given this is a BLP that falls under WP:ARBPS, and the editor has a financial conflict of interest, Mnh429 has an incredibly difficult job trying to change the article to fit Gittleman's worldview and marketing. I've already notified Mnh429 about this, and requested help at FTN. --Ronz (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Ronz. I appreciate the editors' thoughtful consideration of the requested edits. For additional consideration by the editors, could you take a look at the use of "especially fad diets" in the first sentence? That term is unsourced and seems to go against the tone and balance required of BLP articles WP:BLPSTYLE. I think that this should be removed. Mnh429 (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
• Same request for additional consideration for the last sentence of the first paragraph:
  • "Her work is inconsistent with the best understanding of health and nutrition" is presented as a fact, but it is really a biased opinion of the source's author. The tone is not neutral and does not seem balanced. It is also unclear what is meant by the "best understanding of health and nutrition." Can this be edited, removed and/or moved to the controversy section? Mnh429 (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The second part of the sentence "and she has been criticized for promoting pseudoscientific views by presenting scientific research in an overly simplistic and one-sided manner" does not accurately reflect the sources. Neither source uses "overly simplistic" so I think that should be removed. The tone also does not seem neutral. Again, this seems more appropriate to be included in the Controversy section if it is to be included at all. Mnh429 (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the editors' consideration. Looking to reach a consensus on these requested edits. Mnh429 (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Taher Shabbir Mithaiwala

1. The shortest BLP. Do we need such short substubs?
2. The quoted IMDB says Taher Shabbir. The authors don't care to quote a real source.
3. Is the person notable?Xx236 (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Taher Shabbir Mithaiwala.Winged Blades 07:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Nationality of Rosie Malek-Yonan

• Rosie Malek-Yonan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rosie Malek-Yonan had to be protected due to dispute over nationality. Unfortunately the dispute has continued. I tried to start a talk page discussion without success. The dispute centers over whether her nationality should be as described by reliable source (U.S. State Department) or by the subject, who seems to have supporters coming to WP to change it. Bri (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Since the issue is in question, I've removed nationality. The source given for nationality was 404-not_found anyway. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Danza Organica

Would someone mind taking a look at Danza Organica#Marsha Parrilla? I occasionally come across articles like this where the primary topic is some kind of organization/company, but part of the article is sort of an embedded BLP within the. It seems perfectly fine to mention individuals who founded or have significantly impacted organizations such as this, but not sure if the mini BLP approach is warranted, especially if the person does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO on their own. Technically, the notability guidelines do not apply to article content per WP:NNC, but this does seem a bit excessive. Is there anything specifically in WP:BLP which addresses this type of thing? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I would consider the whole of the section at WP:DUE, particularly WP:BALASPS; and the essay WP:COATRACK. - Ryk72 01:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• I removed per WP:NOTCV. Her name is listed in the lede, if there is more than needs to be added, it can be added in a way that is more consistent with Misplaced Pages's style. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ryk72 and TonyBallioni for checking into this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC with a BLP angle

Please see Talk:Plummer_v._State#Request_for_Comment_-_Internet_meme_section. The BLP issue arises in a parenthetical comment in a citation. Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Only in your imagination, and primarily because you don't understand the citation style used. There are no BLP issues. GregJackP Boomer! 07:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution