Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Metamagician3000 (talk | contribs) at 04:12, 24 November 2014 (→Talk:Harry Zolnierczyk: seems reasonable!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

Additional notes:

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

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

Talk:Harry Zolnierczyk

Harry Zolnierczyk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some more eyes on the talk page here would be welcome. There is currently a discussion on whether we should remove a minor conviction from the article. I'm not too sure of any implications on BLP retaining or removing has, so I'm raising it here. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 11:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not really seeing a huge amount of coverage here for this incident, to be honest. A general google search for his name brings up only 53,400 hits for me. I only saw one reference to the child pornography charges in the first 10 pages and a more specific search for "Harry Zolnierczyk child pornography" (without quotation marks) brought up 504 pages, some of which were false positives. From what I can see, most of the media world looked at this and just shrugged their shoulders and moved on. I can't really see where this really merits that large of a section in the article. What we need to consider here is whether or not this charge was ultimately notable in the long run of Zolnierczyk's career and this shouldn't be decided based on whether or not keeping this in the article would further punish or mark him for life. This doesn't mean that I condone what he did or anything, but this seems to be a very brief point in his life that received very little coverage overall. There was a conviction of sorts, but the charges did not go on his permanent record and I'm not entirely sure that they need to be on the article either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• This definitely needs more people giving their input. I don't want to sound unkind, but so far we really only have two predominant voices in this debate: one is from a personal friend of Zolnierczyk who wants the material removed in its entirety or to have things added to soften the blow of his child pornography charges. The other is from someone who wants it included but also seems to want to have it included as punishment for what Zolnierczyk did- a mixture of BLP arguments but also personal convictions. This really, really needs to have more people putting in their two cents as far as this goes because I really don't want it decided by either party, given the circumstances. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• It at least seems disproportionate in its current form. As a first step, before deciding to remove in its entirety, I'd support removing the following as unnecessary detail: "While Zolnierczyk's then Alberni Valley Bulldogs teammate Brad Harding engaged in consensual sex with the underage girl at the home of Harding's billet family in November 2006, Harding's computer webcam transmitted the images to Zolnierczyk who saved and distributed the video to teammates. After showing the video to friends of the victim, RCMP was alerted and with Harding already being interviewed by police, Zolnierczyk was arrested." Metamagician3000 (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The newest version there now seems reasonable to me, and I made a note to that effect on the article's talk page. I hope that that settles the matter! Metamagician3000 (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Amalia Marquez.

Amalia Marquez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject is not notable, may be a living person and the article contains no sources.

This article should be deleted. 89.240.168.149 (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit of a BLP minefield, I've proposed the article for deletion, we'll see if that sticks. Note that there were sources in the article history, removed here, but after a quick look I couldn't find much that was simultaneously reliable, independent, and substantial. Lankiveil 07:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC).

The PROD was removed without comment, so I've raised Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Amalia Marquez at AFD to look more closely at this. Lankiveil 09:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC).

Political designations in blp infoboxes; or, "Is Orson Scott Card a genuine Democrat?"

The question turns on the use of the political party field in the infobox at blp's for individuals notable as political commentators. If that person is independent, would it be misleading to give his political affiliation, eg, a libertarian-leading conservative who voted for Obama as nonetheless affiliated as a Republican or a Lieberman-supporting commentator who ended up supporting Bush, McCain and Romney but who nevertheless prides himself as a member of the Democratic party? See the RfC @ Talk:Orson_Scott_Card#RFC:_Should_we_include_his_political_party_in_the_infobox.3F.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where this "genuine" argument comes from, as the RFC has nothing to do with that. The question was whether political affiliation is relevant enough to be listed in the infobox of a science fiction/fantasy author. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Use of non-standard pronouns for trans people

If a trans person prefers specific non-standard pronouns (e.g., ze/hir), should those pronouns be used throughout their Misplaced Pages article? I am asking specifically about Leslie Feinberg who died today. Feinberg said in an interview in 2006 that hir preferred pronouns are ze/hir. MOS:IDENTITY and even WP:Gender identity don't address this issue. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If possible, feel free to add information related to the issue to Misplaced Pages:Gender identity. Georgia guy (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Georgia guy: Will do when discussion is over/consensus reached. :) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a really interesting question. I would say that preferred pronouns should be used, even if they are non-standard. WP:Gender identity says special attention should paid to human dignity, and I think this is an example where that would apply. — Strongjam (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Do independent mainstream sources use ze/hir? If not, then no (but avoid using him/her, etc., as much as possible). --NeilN 20:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The biography Kate Bornstein is written without personal pronouns, and there is a lengthy debate going back to 2011 on the talk page there about this very issue. Cullen Let's discuss it 21:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Decent point about using what RS use, but as mentioned below, some RS are not very good at covering trans topics, even "gay" publications. I think Feinberg says ze doesn't mind "she" when not in a trans-aware space, but that ze has a preferred pronoun means it matters to hir enough to express that. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Best course would likely be to follow what the reliable sources do. Advocate.com uses "she" and so we would not err in doing so. Collect (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: Advocate has a pretty shitty record when it comes to covering trans people so I wouldn't consider them "reliable" in that sence. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

As per the interview in 2006, imo, considering wp:blp the subjects preferred pronouns should be used- Govindaharihari (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed -- what would a strong advocate of BLP say?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

From the Advocate.com source: EDITOR'S NOTE: Though we have often used "he" in reference to Feinberg at The Advocate, we recognize that this obituary was written by Feinberg's wife, Minnie Bruce Pratt, while at the author's bedside. Thus we are using her preferred pronouns here, despite our previous reporting. I.e. "she" was the "preferred pronoun" per spouse. Collect (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I"m against using such things simply for clarity's sake. I understand the desire of transgender or genderqueer folks to own their identity, but when they are inventing pronouns for themselves, it takes us out of using English in a way that will be understood. If he or she is problematic in regard to some individual, we have the option of the singular they, as well as writing to avoid pronouns in general, but people should not need a decoder sheet to read a paragraph of the article (and this becomes even moreso when we are making references to these individuals outside of their own article.) This is not to say that we shouldn't document their preference, if it is of relevant to our general biographical coverage in their article. (Although I will note, Collect, that it is not clear from what you quote whether the her in "her preferred pronouns" is Feinberg or Pratt. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

When I read the editor's note, I read it as saying that "she" was Feinberg's preferred usage - which they would not have specifically used but for the fact the obit writer was Feinberg's spouse. Saying that you simply are using the term used by the obit writer would seem not to warrant the wording of the note provided. Collect (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I followed Fineberg for many years and was shocked to finally see a recent picture. I agree with much of what NatGertler says. Obviously requires a paragraph explaining this with the quote from The Advocate. The recent picture is worth 1000 words and maybe out of respect to use the preferred pronouns. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Two things: First, if we are going to adopt unusual pronouns in an article at the dictate of the subject, a hatnote is necessary explaining this. People who are unfamiliar with this sort of thing need to be given some idea of why they're seeing these contrived pronouns.

Second, since Misplaced Pages is not censored, it is appropriate to reveal the biological sex of the subject if it is known and germane. I gather that in the case of Feinberg the obfuscation of that is rather the idea, but especially for a non-living subject I see any problem with resolving that if the sources are there. Mangoe (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This is not complicated. If you use "hir", for example, wikilink it. Which redirects toGender-specific and gender-neutral pronouns. Bam! There's the explanation for those who require it. And yes, include a source that explains that the pronoun in question is preferred and why. Rather than just dismissing a pronoun as "contrived".Echoedmyron (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

As a general rule, Misplaced Pages should be following already established editorial practices rather than being a leader or stand-out. With that in mind, I would tend to be against the use of non-standard pronouns such as "ze" and "hir", unless there is good evidence that a significant number of secondary sources have already adopted such a practice. (I don't see much evidence of that in this thread so far, though perhaps people can offer some?) That said, I think the Bornstein example, given above, of avoiding personal pronouns is reasonable for cases like this. It makes the writing more complicated, but that may be an acceptable tradeoff. At present the article only contains two instances where "ze/hir" is used in Misplaced Pages's voice in the article, and those pronouns could reasonably by removed with a little judicious rephrasing. The pronouns also occur in a direct quote from the subject, and I don't see any problem keeping the quote or otherwise mentioning this individual's personal pronoun preferences, but I think it is a little bit too far ahead of the curve for Misplaced Pages to be adopting those pronouns ourselves. Dragons flight (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Stanley Krippner

Stanley Krippner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a malicious person who is tampering with various individuals who support parapsychology. He has been making unauthorized changes to biographies. He has changed the Stanley Krippner page several times and added inaccurate information. Here is what I can discern about the perpetrator:

User:Goblin Face Hello agn This user is agnostic. BM This user is a rabid fan of Black Metal No Quacks logo.png This user resists the POV-pushing of lunatic charlatans. System-users.svg This user edited under a previous user name of Dan skeptic.

♂ This user is male. WikiWed.jpg This user is married. This user is a skeptic. V This user is a vegetarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skrippner (talk • contribs)

If you have concerns about the accuracy of information, please raise that specifically. Concerns that the changes are not being made by "Prof Krippner or his agents" (as mentioned in this edit summary )are, however, inappropriate. This is an encyclopedia, not a resumé service nor a PR service; articles here are not intended to be under the direct control of the subjects. If Krippner or his agents want an official page that represents solely the face that they wish to put forward, there are many fine online services for doing just that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It would probably be appropriate to raise these concerns on the talk page of the article first. Personal attacks are definitely not appropriate. Calling someone malicious, describing their editing as tampering and characterizing them as a perpetrator amounts to a personal attack. You seem to lack an understanding of how Misplaced Pages (WP) works, changes are not "authorized" content is changed/added/removed by any editor based on policies and guidelines. Content on WP represents reliable (mostly secondary) sources based upon the due weight of the sources. If you feel sources are being misrepresented explain that specifically. If you feel undue weight is given or due weight not given explain that. Based on the user name of the editor who made the post starting this discussion consideration of the conflict of interest policy may be in order. Posts should be signed with four tildes ~~~~ and when mentioning a specific editor or quoting them in a discussion they are not involved that editor should be notified. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

This edit-warring has been going on a long time, I raised concern this user before. It seems to be Krippner wants reliable sources removed from his article. These account/IPs seem to be related:

50.247.107.41 (talk · contribs) Skrippner (talk · contribs)

In his edit summaries, Skrippner claims to be Stanley Krippner himself and 50.247 claims to be "Steve Hart, assistant to Prof. Krippner", however, 50.247 in one of his edits also wrote "I am Professor Krippner". So we have two people possibly using the same account/s. I have looked up Steve Hart, he is indeed associated with Krippner - I don't think this is an impersonation. Would be easier though if SKrippner (when he is unblocked) can confirm he is Krippner. But both of these users seems to be claiming material has been added to "their" article not by one of their "agents" and that the material is "unauthorized". They seem to misunderstand what Misplaced Pages is by claiming edits are "unauthorized" but they have been shown the policies. I think it is possible that they had early edits on the article on other accounts... But I am not interested in trying to go through the entire history of the article and tying to find one of their "agents" lol.

As for the "malicious" charge this is incorrect and misleading. Everything I have added to Misplaced Pages is sourced to reliable books or scientific papers. Krippner or anyone else can double-check anything I have added, I don't add anything that is not in the sources - If you believe there is please raise this on the talk-page. You need to note though that the criticisms of Krippner's research are not coming from me, they go back over thirty years and are coming from professional psychologists such as James Alcock or C. E. M. Hansel etc. Misplaced Pages is about reliable sources, not personal opinion. I only cite what the sources say, what the sources say has nothing to do with me personally. If Krippner has a problem with a critical reception to his paranormal work then he needs to take it up off-Misplaced Pages with those scientists. But yes I do like black metal, and those other things on my userpage. Regards. Goblin Face (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, there is nothing wrong with two people using the same IP address, and it is what we would expct from two different non-logged-in people using the same computer... that they have identified themselves in the edit summaries of the edit is to our benefit in following what's going on. Having said that, what they've been doing is indeed improper for a wide range of reasons, including WP:COI, WP:OWN, edit warring, and deleting sourced material without adequate reason. The Skrippner account has been blocked for a week. Let us hope they choose to take concerns to the talk page after this. For now, all BLP concerns seem to be done. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Julien Blanc

Julien Blanc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article on Julien Blanc is currently up for deletion, but it also has a lot of interest for much the same reason, oh, Gamergate controversy does—Blanc is a controversial pickup artist who has been banned from entering Australia. Some of his fans think he's being very poorly treated by the world's media and want to correct this. It could do with a lot of cleanup, possibly with cutting the whole thing back to a stub and starting from scratch to make sure it is BLP compliant. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

amjad ayub mirza

Amjad Ayub Mirza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Amjad Ayub Mirza is a living person however what is written about himself is incorrect, there is no references. Google information states the living person is owner of World Wide News LTD registered at companies house and lives in Glasgow Scotland. He is a taxi driver registered with Glasgow City Council and what has been written is completely false. Further he has no primary source of reference and article should be deleted for violations. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable this entry is clearly not.

Dakota Fanning

at the top of the page, the first two paragraphs seem fine, but then paragraphs 3 and 4 sound like they were written by a random word generator. someone really butchered those. i didn't read further in the article, so perhaps that person has made edits throughout. just wanted to bring this to someone's attention who might want to review it.

75.21.10.194 (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)thetammer

More or less resolved. I was going to try to fix them, but the IP editor is right; they were a bit incoherent in spots, and I think it was best to just remove them. Anyone who wants to work on restoring the content can do so from the history. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

All-American Girl: The Mary Kay Letourneau Story

All-American Girl: The Mary Kay Letourneau Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a pleasant, civil discussion in progress on the talk page regarding the unsourced plot summary that was/is in the article. The question is: Should a subjective plot summary of a fictional film - based on actual events - which portrays a living person and uses their name, be permitted? Or is this a case where sources for a plot summary should be required to protect the living subject of the article? Your input here on the discussion page is welcomed. Thank you!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Cardiff University

Cardiff University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have tried to amend the entry for my friend, colleague and supervisor, Professor Nalin Chandra Wickramasinghe on the grounds that what is stated is fallacious and that Chandra has been treated shamefully by the university. I know. I was there. However I was prevented from editing the entry since I could not provide a 'source'. There are only three people privy to this travesty of justice, one is the university representative who lied and tricked Chandra and me, one is Chandra, and I am the third person. There were only three people in 49b Park Place, Cardiff when the meeting was held. How could you want a better source?

Unfortunately, Misplaced Pages requires that sources be verifiable by the reader. Generally, that means published in some form. Our page on reliable sources may also help. Ravensfire (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be the edit in question. That's definitely not going to happen without a good source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Treon Harris - sexual assault allegations

I would be grateful if one or more BLP/N regulars would take a look at Treon Harris#Sexual assault allegations. Given the high-profile nature of the University of Florida football program, the allegations got a fair amount of initial coverage, but all charges against Harris were dropped relatively quickly. As a University of Florida alumnus, and someone who regularly works on Florida Gators articles, I want to avoid making any changes to this section lest I be accused of being a "pro-Gator partisan" or some such thing. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Allegations make for bad BLPs as a rule - we are obligated to edit conservatively, so the allegations do not belong unless or until something concrete occurs. Collect (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't usually say this, but I agree with Collect. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

There are occasions where it is appropriate for us to report accusations of criminal behaviour that have not been tested in court; we did so while Alastair McAlpine was living. The accusations were demonstrably false in that case (the accuser publicly recanted).

Would commenters here (and everyone else) please look over these?

• Talk:Lena Dunham#Proposed edit and
• Bill Cosby#Rape and sexual assault allegations

--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Phil Davis (fighter)

Phil Davis (fighter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See talk. Specifically on the machida fight.

Issues with neutrality, sourcing, and advisory/opiniated language.

Article is not neutral, but rather has a POV that is loaded and opiniated in many places.

Dana and the ufc affiliated websites are not neutral. ESPN is a major site ignored. UD is a fight outcome, controversial UD is not a fight out come. A fan post from a site like SP Nation, is not neutral or noteworthy. 1 the site is pro ufc and bans ufc critics and criticism. 2 its a fan post.

The whole article is a mess in the machida fight, and needs to be cleaned up and properly sourced and cleansed of personal authorial opinion.

Thank you. 82.32.193.99 (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Sam Lawrence

Sam Lawrence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

article seems to be marketing spam about someone who isn't notable. sources are mostly just PR releases.

I think it meets the notability criteria. I removed some WP:PEACOCK words from the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

St. Francis Preparatory School

St. Francis Preparatory School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are s series of ongoing, dismissed, and settled lawsuits listed in Recent Events. All the information in these articles has either been dismissed or is subject still to challenge in court. The article references deceased and living individuals. When corrected or removed by various editors it has been replaced with more sensational, challengable information.Endcyberbullying (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I have removed these two sentences per WP:BLP. The firing of the transgender teacher may remain, but not sure how relevant it is and how well it needs to be covered, if at all. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Baye McNeil

This entry seems to be sourced mainly from self-published sources (published by the subject himself), his blog, or interviews with the subject concerning his self published books.

There are few or no reliable sources connected to this entry.

It also has problems with notability, seeing as it has a few secondary references, all of which are over a year old (2013 being the most recent). Almost all the secondary sources are interviews with the subject.

I believe it should be considered for deletion.

Harlan K. Ullman

This article appears to have been written, in part at least, by Harlan K. Ullman. It is remarkably sketchy and does not seem to me to be a helpful treatment of the subject, his qualifications, etc. Evidence should be provided for things such as the claim of official service to the U.S.A. government. 24.148.132.226 (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that it cites no sources whatsoever, it could probably be deleted in its present state. It should certainly be reduced to a stub until such time as proper third-party sourcing can be found. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I prodded it. There were a couple of sources in a previous version -- both referring to his involvement in the DC Madam thing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Ron P. Swegman

• Ron P. Swegman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this person notable? Someone else posted here about him; that post was reverted for being a BLP violation, but the question itself is perhaps worth considering. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The article was subject to a malformed AfD last spring, also by a SPA. Most of the references seem to be selfies, and all that. Choor monster (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Gary Hart

Hi all. Would appreciate more eyes on the Gary Hart article. My attention was attracted to it, due to a complaint to WP:COIN which is now resolved, but it turned out that the subject of the complaint was happy to comply with the COI guideline, and the folks who brought him to COIN have some (in my view) overly fierce concern and focus on the journalistic ethics that led to Hart leaving the 1988 primaries and there have been battles raging over stuff that is trivia with regard to Hart per se. I spent about 4 hours last night going through that section and carefully sourcing everything, and now a dynamic IP editor (which may be a sock) is globally reverting the changes. The rest of the article could use a lot of attention as well (a lot of unsourced content, etc). I am treating the global reverts as vandalism so am not worried about 3RR but would appreciate some additional sane voices in the discussion. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

the section where all the battling was going on, and that I worked over, is Gary_Hart#1988_presidential_campaign, by the way. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Other sections were edited as well, like the 1984 campaign as well.80.55.8.138 (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The above editor carried out a massive overhaul of the work of many editors of the page without a consensus for anything:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gary_Hart&diff=634669164&oldid=634647954

The page deals with the biographies of several people, and previous editors made an effort to be fair to them all, as was discussed on the talk page. The above editor claimed vandalism when his work was reverted for lacking any consensus and lacking NPOV in what he drastically edited, including his POV deletions especially regarding Bill Clinton's failed interview to be Hart's V.P., which was properly sourced to Raymond Strothers book, Falling Up. (The author notes on his page that he is a "Clinton democrat".) The page got attention due to the citation of Matt Bai's book All Of The News Is Out. Bai had relied on former Miami Herald editor Tom Fiedler as a source, and that proved controversial after two of Fieler's former colleagues disputed his memory, and eventually Fiedler reversed his position. The son of one of those involved, Sean J. Savage then began aggressively editing the page with a POV favoring his father. The above editor then arrived and decided, rather than come here first, to delete what he just didn't like, take ownership of the page, and call anyone with a different opinion a vandal. The page needed some attention due to the COI POV corrections and needed some help with readability, but the above editor actions and comments have been overly dramatic, and perhaps even manic.83.16.13.64 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

And this is what I meant. The IP editor has some ax to grind, and their contributions to date have been similarly unhelpful and nonspecific. The article is now semi-protected so he/she cannot do any more damage, but more eyes on the article would be useful. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

By having an "ax to grind", the editor refers to making sure that living people have their comments properly quoted, their reactions and denials to 27 year old scandalous accusations noted properly, and very personal issues which have been falsely characterized accurately stated, and making the effort to also detail the lesser known, unsubstantiated stories about Hart's campaigns from the newspaper that made the allegations, etc. It may come as a shock to some, but Wiki has a higher standard for BLB than American news media, which can easily defeat libel claims of public figures. As an international publication Wiki errs on the side of caution, which the above author does not. when relying on old, controversial sources and ignoring new revelations.83.16.13.64 (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

everything in that section is sourced; you have no grounds to say anything is "unsubstantiated." Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Michael J. Pollard

The co-star in the 1967 theater version of "Enter Laughing" was Alan Arkin. The person listed was only in the film version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.35.191 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Bill Cosby 2

How many individual accusers ought be named in the allegations section? I cut it down to six names, and "others" but others suggest we need to name at least eight individuals. I note that the allegations are not about events of 2014, but are set some years back, and none have been tried in court. Is 8 still within the reasonable weight standards for allegations? Thanks. Collect (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Why 8? That seems rather arbitrary. I'd say mention only those that are covered significantly by RS. But we need to seriously consider not naming them at all as well. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 08:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• I second that we should only mention those that have received significant coverage, partially as a BLP issue but also because there have been about 16 women (if I'm remembering correctly) that have come forward with allegations. I don't mean to sound like I'm trivializing the allegations, but at some point listing all of the women would be a list for the sake of being a list. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good compromise to individually mention the women about whom we do have articles, such as Janice Dickinson. "NN women, including..." followed by some blue links. §FreeRangeFrog 17:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I just heard about this today, from FOX News (Cracked sent me). Earlier, the story started "Nine. That's the number...", but just checked again, and they've already updated. So ten. Until it's eleven. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:21, November 21, 2014 (UTC)

At this point, I think a construction along the lines of "women, including (blue link) and (blue link)", is probably best. Only linking those who have articles, but also taking care to make it clear that there are more. Lankiveil 06:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC).

Yesterday I read 13 so agree the women with articles that come forward publicly should be name and then something about other women who are remaining anonymous.Legacypac (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Pamela Ribon

Pamela Ribon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A small handful of IP editors are repeatedly inserting this line into the biography of Pamela Ribon:

She is listed in the Oxford English Dictionary under "muffin top."

She is not listed so much as she is quoted from a book to demonstrate ways the term is used in context. I believe that this line is meant to be offensive and intentionally misleading. I have already reverted these edits twice so at this point I would like to ask for a second opinion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 20:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

seems bad to me. thanks for catching this. Jytdog (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Strange addition - nothing in the OED like that. Legacypac (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Ben Wedeman

Hi. Could someone take a look at this edit to the Ben Wedeman article and determine if it is actually libelous as User:Auroraz7 claims and thus must be removed. Thanks. Quis separabit? 21:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

that comment was funky and the article content it was commenting on, was not appropriate for a BLP. I took a shot at fixing it. Thanks for bringing this here. Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I took out the whole statement, since the allegations pertain to banner headlines that are written and posted by CNNI producers and/or editors at the broadcast center in Atlanta, GA. That these individuals wrote "bad" banners in no way reflects on a reporter in the field (e.g., Mr. Wedeman, but it could be anyone else). Overall, it appears to me that someone is systematically visiting every page associated with either Mr. Wedeman or the Jerusalem synagogue attack and inserting almost-identical text shedding doubt on his credibility. In short, it is defamatory and without merit. The individual posting the material clearly has some sort of agenda, which is highly inappropriate and antithetical to Misplaced Pages's mission. I do not have such an agenda: I'm just a news junkie who happened to be up way too late Tuesday night and saw the story break. I was shocked when, a day later, I went to google news to see what was happening with the story and saw the merit-free accusations being reported as fact. That is the only reason I noticed the material on Misplaced Pages. Thanks for taking the time to set it right. saraw1 (talk)00:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auroraz7 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I unintentionally exhibited bad manners by taking out the whole section. I apologize.... pretty much of a novice and still learning the ropes. However, I stand by my above comment, and hope you will overlook my faux pas/take it seriously. Thanks! saraw1 (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Auroraz7 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• The text that relates to the synagogue shooting is questionable on a number of grounds, chiefly because Wedeman did not write the headline in question. Does it belong in the article at all? I say no. Coretheapple (talk) 22:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Coretheapple. Auroraz7 (talk) 23:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Christina Hoff Sommers

The subject has mentioned inaccuracies and slurs on the page. Just doing a quick report. Could you check? (User:SatansFeminist) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.157.105 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The quotes are all hers and sourced. What's the problem? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

whew that is a bitter dispute. article is full-protected now too. Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect to Christina Hoff Sommers, it is not especially helpful for her to say that the article is full of inaccuracies and slurs without saying what they are or how she thinks the article should be changed. I think there are BLP problems with the article, but my view of them may not be the same as hers. Among other things, there is a sentence reading " The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy categorizes "equity feminist views as libertarian and socially conservative " that is poorly sourced and needs removing (it is also very confusing and poorly written as it presently stands, which gives you some idea of the low-quality editing that has been going on at that article). There has been some discussion of this on the talk page, and I invite interested editors to review it. ImprovingWiki (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If there are "inaccuracies and slurs" in an article, in order to help you out you need to point out which edits are offending (see here for more info). We really can't help you out if we don't know what we're looking for, sorry. As this is Misplaced Pages the best solution is often to improve an article on your own! ♪ Tstorm(talk) 09:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

She is, and these are her own words frequently stated, a 'card carrying Democrat.' It should at least say that she says that. The article is being slanted to paint her as solely conservative. If you look at the article from a few weeks ago it was far less of an inaccurate character assassination in that respect, which is important to her as a BLP subject.SatansFeminist (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been trying to compare the version from later July with the version now, and it seems that the version now is much improved - in particular in the removal of unbalanced criticism that was there in July. The July version did have a statement along the lines of "Author Barbara Marshall has stated that Sommers explicitly identifies herself as a 'libertarian.' Sommers is also a registered Democrat." Is this the line in contention? The article currently describes her views as libertarian, so I assume that the concern is that it doesn't also say that she is registered as a Democrat. - Bilby (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

What the article looked like previous is irrelevant, though it's good it's improved. That's more a content dispute and this is for BLP violation discussion. We need very specific things that are "inadequacies and slurs" as you claimed. For what specific reason did you start a thread here? I'm not just dismissing the issue because I haven't looked into the article in depth, but I don't know what your intentions were without evidence. Multiple instances and diffs, specifically. As the complainant you need to do the research. Is there anything beyond what Bilby and ImprovingWiki have stated above? The goal of this board is to give BLPs proper help, after all. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 15:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Joshua_Bonehill

Joshua_Bonehill

This article is being repeatedly edited by the subject, editing as Jooner29, to include information based on feedback loops, and embellishment of the information in the sources cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntiCauliflower92 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 23 November 2014‎

The user above has persistently vandalised the article with a biased agenda. I have simply reverted his vandalism and stated my reasons in doing so. The user has a history of vandalising the Joshua Bonehill page Jooner29 (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Jooner29, AntiCauliflower's edits are not vandalism, but yours involve a conflict of interest and are biased in your favor. Read WP:COI, and while you're at it, WP:TEND. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Murray Bartlett

The info about his sexuality has been cyclically removed and re-inserted. I wonder if such info abides to BLP and NPOV policies. --George Ho (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to side with the inclusion of it, especially if there's a cited source of the matter that was particularly notable which there seems to be here. Current overall Misplaced Pages consensus in BLPs (found from any quick search) are that mentions of being "openly gay" are generally acceptable. Honestly there's no one policy to point to either way so I'd side with consensus. I'd welcome an admin to look this over if there is continued disagreement. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 11:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

There should be some sense that it's relevant to his notability somehow. It's fine that he's openly gay -- but is there a reason anyone should care? We wouldn't write that someone is "openly straight", unless there was good reason. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I can only mention precedent in this matter, which is that substantial numbers of BLPs on the site have specific mentions of "openly gay" and similar. I'm not disagreeing with you that it's a sort of silly debate. At best I can point you over to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBT studies#Guidelines which does seem to imply they prefer it be included. Disclaimer: That's just a style suggestion. It's not an official policy or anything. You can certainly bring this up on their project talk page. They'd have better opinions than here, probably. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 16:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

For now, the best I can do is preserve. --George Ho (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

2014 shootings at Parliament Hill, Ottawa

Skookum1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user has twice restored the deletion of an incorrect birth name for the Parliament Hill shooter and commenced a war against me on the talk page.

I reported the matter to the 3RR board for edit warring but it was declined because only 2RR. However I now realize that this is a BLP issue (subject dead only a month) and that leaving in an inaccurate name can harm the real Michael Joseph Hall. It is a clear case of needing to follow RS BLPSOURCES as I laid out most clearly on the talk page here. It seems like I can rely on WP:BDP BLPSOURCES & WP:BLPREMOVE but given the vicious personal attacks launched I'd prefer an Admin step in and deal with the matter. Cheers, Legacypac (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Mary Landrieu

Mary Landrieu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A runoff election for the office of U.S. Senator from Louisiana is currently ongoing. Early voting began Nov 22, 2014 and Election Day is December 6, 2014.

COI disclosure: I work for an organization associated with the campaign, so I am hoping Misplaced Pages's community of editors will review these issues and make the necessary revisions.

Overall the selection of topics and headings included in the article seems designed to highlight her opponents' criticisms of her while ignoring many of the accomplishments her supporters praise her for. This violation of Misplaced Pages's BLP policy on balance is particularly egregious because it is intended to influence voters' views without raising flags with editors and admins for partisanship.

While this may appear accidental, that cannot be an excuse given the revelations several weeks ago that Republican operatives have been deliberately manipulating the Misplaced Pages pages of Democratic Senators . One of the operatives identified in those reports edited Senator Landrieu's article on 14 September 2014.

Today, edits have been made to the article with provocative and false information.

The "Political Positions" section lists abortion, guns, Obamacare, and same-sex marriage, but does not include the minimum wage, education, equal pay for women, domestic violence, adoption, or other areas of concern to voters or focus for the Senator. The reference to "Obamacare" itself may be inflammatory, since it is officially called the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."

An entire section is titled "'Air Mary' Controversy" which may be the way opponents would characterize this, while her supporters might prefer to title the section "Billing Error." This is clearly intended to imply corruption when none was found.

The article references her support for President Obama's positions without including similar statistics from her Senate terms during the Clinton and Bush administrations. There is very little information included about her work on behalf of small businesses or coastal restoration.

We can be sure that supporters and opponents would have strong opinions about the article, so it would be helpful for Misplaced Pages's editors to review these concerns.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pas28 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 24 November 2014

Kathleen Cook

Is Kathleen Cook now sufficiently notable to warrant an article?

https://medium.com/@tcarr_airpower/air-force-generals-errant-political-tweet-invites-scrutiny-of-public-affairs-efforts-5f94ba998e5b?source=tw-4a505f3a0f16-1416799015613

Hcobb (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

1. http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/gop-opposition-research-firm-is-editing-democratic-politican

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution