Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period. This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material. Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here. You can request a revision deletion on IRC using #wikipedia-en-revdel connect, where only administrators will be able to see your concerns. Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here. Sections older than 5 days archived by ClueBot III. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Search this noticeboard & archives Additional notes: Note that edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. Place the {{BLP noticeboard}} template on the talk page of articles that are being discussed here, and remove it when the discussion is resolved. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, consider using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. All editors are encouraged to assist fellow editors regarding the reports below. Administrators should review enforcement instructions.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Centralized discussion
Proposal for coordination of Good articles Stand-alone lists - eligibility for nomination as Good Articles Closing deletion discussions with low participation Patrolling new pages without a user right AWB reordering references Password strength requirements and advanced permissions Pending changes level 2

A Voice for Men

A Voice for Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an article about a controversial organisation in a politically controversial subject area. Note my declared CoI in respect of the subject organisation.

The BLP issue is that, as currently written, this article imputes income to Paul Elam based on un-dated, 3rd-hand information from a self-evidently biased (and therefore not "high quality" per WP:BLP) party that cannot be independently verified by anybody who doesn't have access to Dun & Bradstreet reports which, I imagine, would be most people. I elaborate on these assertions, particularly vis-à-vis RS, in my post to the article's talk page. Because of my role in the organisation, I am uniquely in a position to know for a fact that Elam does not receive income as described and has not since February 2015, if he ever did.

By suggesting that Elam benefits from income he does not in fact obtain, this article materially misrepresents his position politically and is therefore in violation of WP:NPOV and also WP:V by virtue of the inability of the public at large to confirm what the article claims in respect of Elam's income from this organisation.

Thus, I know the article to be inaccurate and incorrect concerning a period of nearly two years or more, and yet I am told by Administrator Bbb23 that a) I ought not edit the article (on grounds of CoI) and b) this BLP matter ought be brought here.

In accordance with Bbb23's directions, I posted to the article's talk page the changes I believe to be appropriate concerning this and other matters. Bbb23 was very quick (ie, in under 10 minutes) to revert my edits (whether they knew or not of my connection to the organisation) and yet nearly six hours later I have received not a single response from my post to the talk page. Given apparent lack of interest despite close monitoring of this controversial article, I therefore wish to flag the BLP issue here and request that I be authorised (or someone else) to edit the article in question to clear up the misattribution issue. Ideally, such edits would also include reference to the LLC set up by Elam because that, too, is materially relevant to Elam's personal and political disposition.

— Strix ^t 22:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23's edit was correct; you were making improper use of primary sources. Your approach here is appreciated -- bringing the issue to this noticeboard was the right thing to do. But the evaluation offered by other editors is unlikely to meet your hopes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about Bbb23's revert; I may not agree with it, but that's a completely separate matter. This is BLP/N, so I'm not here to appeal the question of primary sources.

Being BLP/N, the only relevant issue here is correction of factually inaccurate content about a living person pursuant to WP:BLP, and WP:V in particular. According to WP:BLP it would seem that I would be entitled to go in and fix the problem directly but, given the CoI, I felt it more respectful to the WP community to try to resolve the issue here than enter into a revert war which would almost certainly end only one way and end badly at that.

Pursuant to WP:BLP, the only thing that matters per policy — and, therefore, to other editors (in theory) — is what is demonstrably true. The claims in the article in question cannot be verified and therefore should be removed unless a more reliable source can be found. (If so, have at it. Like I said, all that matters is what is true regardless of my own interpretations of it.)

As it is, I know that the (implied) claims in question — namely that the organisation currently has annual revenues of $120k, and that Elam is the sole beneficiary of that revenue — to be false, therefore it should be fixed. Neither Elam nor the LLC should have to produce their 1040 and 1120 respectively to prove otherwise. The onus is on the Wikipedia community to maintain the integrity of its content by assiduously adhering to its own standards.

In this case, those standards call for the removal of some content, and yet I am actually calling for a more moderate approach of rephrasing the offending material in the past tense (thereby allowing for the possibility that it might once have been true, but that nobody can be sure of it), but is undoubtedly no longer true (if it ever were) and setting out the prevailing circumstances. At the very least, the D&B report containing the alleged income should be dated, and it is not. And so far as I can tell, nobody can discern when that unscrutinised report was dated. Do you see why there is currently a problem that needs fixing?

If you are prepared to entertain a claim which cannot be proved, then you should not have any reason not to take my word for what those circumstances are. — Strix ^t 00:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I've had a look at your proposed change on the talk page. The issue of source date can perhaps be dealt with: "An article published in 2015 noted that...". But we're not going to put anything about more recent changes that can't be verified by a reliable secondary source. Have you had a look at WP:OR? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Just putting this out there for anyone who's never had access to it, Dun & Bradstreet is not a reliable source. This also goes for similar private databases like Accurint. Some of what's on D&B specifically is supposed to be evaluated by living breathing people. But as a default position, these databases should be treated with the same trust as a Google search. They are, for the most part, information dumps from algorithms. As an example, Accurint once told me that I was a pastor of a church in a city an hour and a half away. Spoiler: I'm not. TimothyJosephWood 15:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Dun & Bradstreet isn't being used as a source; our article cites a secondary source which itself makes reference to D&B. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

If WP depends on BuzzFeed and BuzzFeed depends on D&B for the veracity of the claim in question, then WP ultimately depends on D&B so yes, D&B is the ultimate source of this claim in this instance. Even if D&B were reliable (and I take User:Timothyjosephwood's point that it may not be), it isn't verifiable. Either way, it violates one or both of WP:RS and WP:V. — Strix ^t 15:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It's up to Buzzfeed to determine whether it is satisfied with the truth of the claim, and it's not up to Wikipedia editors to decide that the claim is untrue. I know you're not going to like it, but that's what our policies amount to: go with what secondary sources say, and don't do your own research about what's in primary sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

In principle, WP editors don't need to evaluate the truth of a secondary source because readers can follow them up and make up their own minds. That model is broken in this case because the D&B report is not available to the general public. Suppose BF had completely fabricated the claim and attributed it to a source that is unverifiable, how is anyone to know? WP:BLP demands a higher standard when positive claims are being made about living individuals. That standard requires verifiability, and that is not possible in this case. It says so right there in WP:BLP. If you won't adhere to your own policies, what does that say about the integrity of the WP project? I'm sure I read something about the primacy of that somewhere.

If you can honestly tell me that you believe that the BF cited article is reliable and that WP:V doesn't apply (despite BLP policy to the contrary), and that the fact that I know the claim to be false is irrelevant because my knowledge isn't verifiable (even though the BF's verifiability doesn't seem to matter), then I guess there's nothing more I can usefully say.

I don't think WP's policies are fundamentally broken, but I think there is some reason to think that there is bias and partiality in the way that they are enforced. And there's nothing I can do about that if you aren't willing to be open to the possibility that things need to be fixed. — Strix ^t 16:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The claim is verifiable with reference to the source being used to support it: readers can look at the Buzzfeed article. No-one is proposing to ask readers to consult D&B (and indeed it would be a violation of our own policies if D&B were being used as a source here). The notion that V isn't satisfied because D&B isn't easily accessible is your own invention; it's not relevant here. (By the way, there's no requirement that a source be easily accessible, e.g. clickable/on-line -- see WP:SOURCEACCESS -- but again that's not meant to imply that D&B can be used even if most people don't have access to it, because we're not using D&B as a source.) As I see it, the recourse open to you, if you genuinely believe that Buzzfeed has erred in its reporting, is to approach Buzzfeed and ask them to retract the article and/or print a correction or update. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I've brought this Buzzfeed article up before, and I'll state my opinion on it again. Financials on AVFM are too close to Paul Elam, and you can't separate the two. This means we have to have BLP compliant sourcing if we're going to put it into article. In turn, I would say that buzzfeed article is a good example of what BLP is out there to protect against, and we shouldn't be using it in the article. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• D&B here is a red-herring. They are a data/report/analyst etc being used by a secondary source. We would not cite D&B directly in a BLP. The question to answer from a BLP perspective is 'Is Buzzfeed a reliable source for a controversial claim on a BLP?' I would hesitate to say they are unreliable given they are an organisation with an editorial board, staff writers etc. But they are far from being what I would personally consider reliable to get financial news from. But as a BLP violation, the source is verifiable and satisfies the criteria to be used on a BLP. I personally would not however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. D&B is the actual source. That someone at Buzzfeed did a D&B search and decided it was good enough for them is less important. If they cited the National Enquirer instead of D&B, their decision to take the number from a tabloid wouldn't make the number itself any more reliable than if we sourced the tabloid directly. TimothyJosephWood 16:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

No the reference/source is Buzzfeed. D&B are merely buzzfeed's source of information for their article. This is basic sourcing 101 here. Per WP:V we do not do original research on sources. That is their job. That is why we source articles to secondary sources. D&B would be a primary source for the claim. That a secondary source has chosen to use D&B is in fact the most important part of verifying a reliable source - do they exercise editorial judgement. You way would have us work on the basis of 'Do we believe the primary source is correct'. Which is not how WP:V works. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

And we regularly consider the primary sources that secondary sources use, such as discounting official press releases for the purposes of notability, regardless of whether they were reprinted in another publication. TimothyJosephWood 16:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

And unless you are indicating Buzzfeed printed a D&B press release how is that relevant? We disregard press releases for most things because they are primary sources. Where a press release has been printed verbatim by a secondary source we treat it as a primary source. Do you actually have a genuine argument that Buzzfeed are either an unreliable source incapable of doing their own research? Or in some way violate WP:V or WP:BLP? Because at the moment your only argument has been 'D&B are wrong' which isnt relevant. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What I am indicating is that a secondary source is not a magic wall that prevents critical thinking about the material that is reported and where it came from. And yes, if their journalistic judgement in this case is that a D&B search is good enough for them then it's not good enough for us and certainly not as it relates to BLP. TimothyJosephWood 16:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Which is not how wikipedia treats sources. Either in biographies or anywhere else. That you want to engage in original research to disqualify a secondary source based on your interpretation of *its* sources is actively prohibited by policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not original research to say it came from the source they say it came from. TimothyJosephWood 16:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Buzzfeed shouldn't be used at all on this site. If you can find the information in actual RS's, you should use them. Arkon (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Buzzfeed News is reliable and has good editorial control. We even have an article on their EiC (Ben Smith (journalist)). Obviously, Buzzfeed listicles aren't reliable sources. Buzzfeed News is. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why having an article about their EiC is particularly relevant, but I obviously disagree. We would do well to rid ourselves of the Buzzfeed/Gawker nonsense. Arkon (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Editorial control and reputation for factchecking is literally one the most important criteria in identifying what a reliable source is. Having a credible EiC is obviously a big part of that. It's simply a fact that established journalists are moving to the newsrooms of non-traditional media outlets. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

And in this case, the two authors are both established journos. One is now a senior editor at The Atlantic [1], while the other has worked for Newsweek and the San Francisco Chronicle [2]. This isn't some random listicle, or social/general interest news story.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump / Mike Pence

Donald Trump's (and possibly the Mike Pence) article needs to be rewritten by a professional in good faith as someone suggested in Trump-talk. The info box editor(s) do not allow for his "state" of birth (?). If you see how the introduction was written before I started editing there (in good faith), you can see more of what I'm talking about. I (username) was banned (banded) there while referred by an administrator as "they" instead of YS or "he or she". YahwehSaves (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

You're topic banned from "all things Donald Trump" - posting this here was not a good idea. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bishonen: FYI. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Fyddlestix. (The ping didn't work, and I see why in the history, compare WP:ECHO: "if the mention is not on a completely new line with a new signature, no notification will be sent.") Warned, since it's the first infraction. I'm surprised the user would go on about the "they" thing again, and on a new board, after I explained nicely, or so I thought, to them that singular they is standard usage on Wikipedia when a user's gender is not known.[3] But it is what it is. Bishonen | talk 09:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC).

Pizzagate drive-by original research tagging

Bringing here due to WP:BLP issues previously documented.

Please see Talk:Pizzagate_(conspiracy_theory)#Drive-by_original_research_tagging. Sagecandor (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Also added an edit-request at Talk:Pizzagate_(conspiracy_theory)#Widely_debunked. Sagecandor (talk) 05:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Ana Braga

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

I have noticed that violators have been posting inappropriate and false information about Ana Braga. For now, her page is accurate and age as 35 years old which is correct. Can you please keep an eye on her page please? I also noticed they have removed her references as well. This has been occurring frequently. You can check the old edits. Thanks so m much for your time and attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busyme11 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

José Ramos Muñoz

José Ramos Muñoz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bibliography has been vandalised several times — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josemariacarrascal (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Michael Ridpath

Michael Ridpath I am Michael Ridpath and I feel that the last paragraph of the entry referring to me is unfair and inaccurate. The paragraph states: "His works have been subject to some scrutiny, however, notably some Amazon reviewers have noted that his novels are "very short stor[ies]...the book equivalent of about 30 pages".[2] On the other hand, his lengthier novels have been criticised as needing to be "whittled down" by a paid editor.[3]"

These are gleaned from two of the hundreds of reviews I have received on amazon. The average star rating of my reviews is above 4.0, which is quite high. The two reviews quoted, while negative, also happen to be factually incorrect (i.e. the reviewers were incorrect). The first review relates to Edge of Nowhere which is a novella with the book equivalent of 60 pages (not 30). The second review refers to On The Edge, which was edited by Beverly Cousins, crime editor at my publisher Penguin Books, who was therefore paid. The point is, clearly this paragraph has been inserted by someone with an axe to grind who wishes to make my books appear bad. Removal of the paragraph would make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.92.180 (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Amazon reviews are not a reliable source, so I have removed it. The article is not in great shape though, lots of unsourced information - it needs more/better references. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

There does not seem to be much unsourced material now. I apologise to Michael Ridpath that these violations of our Biographies of living people policy were not dealt with sooner. MPS1992 (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

erin fleming movies

This article is about my sister and there are several factual errors. I am her younger brother and she had two older brothers. She had parents--not two men (in fact I don't know who they are) Doctor David Russell Fleming, and Evangeline Fleming. I don't know where they got a fictitious middle name--Erin Leslie. She chose Erin as a stage name but her real names were Marilyn Suzanne.

Another curiosity is that I am on a laptop and get a picture and a short blurb before I click on Wikipedia, and ny wife gets another picture. Hers is the correct one and mine is not.

Everything else appears to be correct.

Richard Fleming — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:84E0:631:614F:81D5:263A:1846 (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The first source (for the lede) is a US gov source, which only says Erin M. The second source is IMDB, which is not a reliable source. The problem is two-fold: 1.)We have no way of confirming who people such as yourself are, thus we have no way of knowing if the information is correct, and 2.) assuming that you are her brother, there is also a conflict of interest. (See WP:COI) What I would suggest is that, if you have access to reliable sources such as a biography or news/magazine articles, gather them up and present them on the article's talk page. Ask someone for assistance in making the necessary changes, but refrain from making them yourself, due to the conflict of interest. Zaereth (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Zaereth's advice about how to address the Wikipedia article. The "picture and a short blurb before I click on Wikipedia" are probably from Google or some similar service, so the incorrect information or photo there will be Google's fault. There is some explanation of this, and advice about fixing Google information, at WP:FIXGOOGLE. MPS1992 (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Ahmed Mohamed Mohamoud

Ahmed Mohamed Mohamoud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the very first opening section, the following is written:

"Standing as an opposition candidate, he was elected as President of Narnia—a self-declared republic that is not recognized by a single human Delusional region of Somalia—in Somaliland's 2010 presidential election.[2]"

Obviously this article has been tampered with by a malicious user. He was elected President of Somaliland - an autonomous nation that has struggled to receive international recognition and is apparently the target of quite a bit of hatred from some Somali nationals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.142.225.96 (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The most obvious vandalism seems to have been fixed, but the page could probably use more eyes. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

List of Albuquerque police shootings

I have a concern about this article, which I wrote, or perhaps the word is compiled. Nobody else is taking issue with it afaik, although I have not looked at it in a couple of weeks.

But I would like some guidance about the names of police shooting victims in a BLP context. A few are iconic, such as Shooting of James Boyd and Mary Hawkes, who should have an article imho, and received massive coverage in both local and national news sources. But there is the one-event rule; how does this apply? My thinking is that when people riot because of something about your death, you are a public person, and if there is streaming coverage of litigation about your death then perhaps your death is important.

But there are other shooting victims, for lack of a better word, who were perhaps so dangerous that the police had no choice, such as the man who had his wife in the trunk of his car when he was shot or the man who was walking around with a machete while intoxicated, angry at the person who sent him to jail. Some of these shooting victims survived and may conceivably not wish to be known for being so wigged-out the police had to shoot them, and also got little news coverage at the time. (Until recently police shootings were treated as rather routine in Albuquerque). There is also the consideration that some of those shot, while supposedly very dangerous, did not have an opportunity to tell their side and the Albuquerque police don't seem, given recent revelations, to be all that reliable as a source.

Perhaps some of these names should be blanked, but the references left, since *they* still exist, even if we don't want to add move coverage to them? I am thinking of coming back to this group of articles sometime soon and would be interested in any thoughts. Elinruby (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

While I haven't really had time to look at the list, I'd generally ask myself if those on the list have somehow risen from the level of simply being newsworthy to that of being encyclopedia worthy. In other words, if the details and all of the news-fillers were removed, would there still be enough information to make a decent article about each? My guess is that in some cases, yes, but a good number of them, no. My personal opinion of a victim of any sort is to use the utmost of care when it comes to their privacy, and to me this even includes their names. Unless the person I notable in their own right, or cases like Rodney King where the victim is central to the controversy, then there is usually very little gained by giving their names, birthdates or other personal information. That's just my two cents, but perhaps others will have a better take. Zaereth (talk) 01:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

That is sort of the concern, although I am not sure why you say Rodney King was central to the controversy. The reason for the list is for those who are unfamiliar with Albuquerque and don't realize that beyond the national news stories mentioned above the police are shooting dozens of people there. The current format is shooter name, shootee name, any brief comments (ie caught carjacking) then outcome for shootee and outcome for shooter, which is also highly material imho -- many were promoted. None were charged. (Except in the James Boyd shooting that was just in court). I think the level of police violence actually merits its own article, but meanwhile a compilation of the references for the more notorious cases may be useful. It *is* highly referenced, btw, I should mention that. Anyway. And yet there are the people are #sayhername who feel that we should remember these people. Perhaps I should ask the question separately for 2 categories a) the national stories, ie Mary Hawkes and James Boyd, and the ones who got 1-2 days of brief coverage and another dollop when the civil case went to court (there is almost always a civil case). Or into dead victims and survivors?

This screams to me an issue of pushing a POV about the apparently brutality of the Albuquerque police. Most of the information is sourced to the local police logs, meaning it is based on primary sources. While I don't doubt the validity, pulling the information in this manner is not something that seems to have been done in secondary sources to assert problems with the Albuquerque police, and because that's an identifiable group, it falls pretty much as a BLP problem (particularly as we are naming names). There probably is, with the well-covered shootings, some area to discuss criticism of the use of lethal force and how the notable shootings came into the national limelight on the APD main page. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

@Masem: are you looking at the list or at the James Boyd article? I am under the impression that the list is referenced by local news sources mostly. There may be links to court filings as well in the outcome section, but the events should be primarily referenced by KOAT and the Albuquerque Journal. The James Boyd article, now, does have a primary source problem, ie a new editor more used to the courtroom, plus the local news station's decision to stream the trial -- but that is a separate issue I am also trying to resolve. Right now on this noticeboard though, the issue I I am raising is what is due to the people who were shot.

If you are suggesting that I only cover *notable* shootings how would you suggest that I decide which ones are *notable*? They all had media coverage, and they almost all resulted in lawsuits. But what is notable is the *number* of shootings as opposed to parsing the details of whether officer thus and such should have shot the man with the machete. I understand what you are saying about the APD page, but significant preliminary work will need to be be done, as I don't think it even covers the DoJ intervention or the consent decree. This too should be remedied, sure, but one thing at a time. I actually think a list many be fairer to the police department, if that is your concern, since it does indicate that at least some of these shootings seem to be justified. Not giving you a hard time, just trying to get you to see what I am asking. Last I looked there *was* a lot of POV pushing on the APD page, also. I am not sure if the edit warriors are still watching the page, but the city government has a history of editing wikipedia. But never mind that. Right now I am asking what, assuming there *is* this list -- or the article it may turn into -- is the best way to handle the specifics of someone who is dead or mentally incapacitated and therefore is never going to be trying to be famous for something else. And yet, as one of a series of shootings, their death is notable. (?) Elinruby (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC) PS: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/10/cops-fatal-shootings/15277951/?AID=10709313&PID=4003003&SID=rut774o3ji6k a pretty good explainer here] of the scope of the issue. Elinruby (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking at the list. Has anyone else (reliable source) published a similar list (perhaps only different in missing a handful of entries?) If yes, okay, that might be reason to keep but there are issues related to BLP1E/BIO1E and privacy of victims as well. But if no one else has published this extensive a list, it's creating a skewing of POV that the APD uses lethal force too often, as there's no context as to whether some of these were justified or if some were just excessive. And to know that requires non-primary coverage, and likely better than local coverage where the issue of each shooting is considered in a larger world view (contrast opinions on guns between the various states). I would really avoid this list until there is a prose section (on the APD article or a standalone) that covers the criticism towards the APD and these types of fatal shootings, as that will then highlight the shootings that have the most relavance to that topic. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it would be helpful (and important) to have an introduction to the topic indicating its significance. The link Elinruby has given seems to be an excellent basis for this. Even the police department seem to think there is a problem. Thincat (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick GNews search shows that an article or section of APD critical of their more recent approaches is entirely possible. I just note that also by the same spot check that none of those seem to enumerate every single case, only the ones where the use of force was very questionable and/or already determined unnecessary, thus highlighting only key cases. If a police shooting only has attracted coverage from local coverage, that's likely reason not to include here, and alongside BIO1E/BLP1E, reasons to avoid this list in full. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I think WP:BLP1E is a distraction because it discusses when we should or should not have an article about a person. I do think these list entries need to be carefully thought about (I'm not sure what I think) but perhaps WP:BLPNAME and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE are the relevant references. Thincat (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Completely right, BLPNAME would be what I am concerned with. Names of victims and/or officers of cases not discussed at large are problematic. --MASEM (t) 00:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Anthony Shaffer (intelligence officer)

• Anthony Shaffer (intelligence officer)

Several citations needed, could use some eyes. Sagecandor (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Kelly D. Brownell

This article may have been maliciously edited. See these quotes: "and internationally renowned expert at eating." and " He also serves as product tester at McDonald's." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.129.251.218 (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Back to real state. Collect (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Simon Halabi

This article is being maliciously edited after the arrest of Simon Halabi in a racist incident. RedPlanet321 (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

An alleged racist incident is what you mean, of course. I wonder if the material needs to remain in the article at all, until such time as any court proceedings conclude. MPS1992 (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Fergie Olver

This article is protected because of BLP concerns. There was a discussion on the talk page, however an editor added defamatory information (diff) to the article (now removed) and considering the nature of the wording, a revision deletion is probably warranted. freshacconci talk to me 18:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• See also here where he accuses the person who reverted his edits of being a "pedophile supporter"). I have ceased engaging with him. freshacconci talk to me 18:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• And he's still at it. I've now warned him twice. freshacconci talk to me 18:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• And now he's resorted to personal attacks in his edit summary. I've given him a final warning. The article in question will still require a revision deletion. freshacconci talk to me 18:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

JT Leroy

Hello, I am involved in a pending DRN with Msturm 8 that was created on 12/11/2016. The JT Leroy page is not exactly a biography of a living person, but it is integrally related to Laura Albert, who is a living person, and the Laura Albert page. Recent edits seem relevant and disputable.

Among the edits Msturm 8 made on 12/13/2016:

• Msturm 8 removed a paragraph, Reason: It was inappropriate because it quoted Laura Albert... However that is inaccurate, Laura Albert was not quoted in that paragraph.
• Msturm 8 removed a significant amount of content, Reason: "pseudonym was a lie." This doesn't make sense; author published with a pseudonym.. also removes content that was up for 3 weeks in an edit request without objection. Definitely welcome changes to this section, but would appreciate the oversight of a more experienced editor.
• Msturm 8 added a line about Albert on phone calls. Starts out fine but then seems to conflict with WP:BLPStyle. It's vague and out of context.

As you can see on the Talk:JT Leroy Msturm 8's position is adamant to use Wikipedia to bring attention to Laura Albert as a fraud all-round, in all her activities.

My position is that this unfairly vilifies Albert, and by extension all authors who use pseudonyms and performance artists who have a separate persona in public than in private life.

Some people were angry perhaps, others were not. To address Msturm_8's position, I think Huon articulated this perfectly (on the Talk:JT Leroy) "If we strip away the hyperbole, all this shows is that people were angry when they realized Albert had deceived them. I expect there are better sources out there that will allow us to make the same point without the obvious bias."

I would appreciate help resolving this issue, since I've tried to improve the page and my edits have been reverted by Msturm 8.. and our current discussion seems to be going nowhere. Thank you. PacificOcean (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

References

• Comment - I will be closing the threads at the dispute resolution noticeboard to allow resolution here. I will note that both parties have conflicts of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Scooter Braun

The article for this Hollywood talent agent included a paragraph about an incident at Roosevelt Field Mall where a crowd awaiting an appearance by his client, Justin Bieber, got unruly. It led to the agent being arrested and, eventually, to a plea-bargain that included having Bieber record a public service announcement. I'd helped draft the paragraph a few years ago and it stood in the article since then. Another editor has deleted it, on BLP and UNDUE grounds. I disagree. We've got a thread going on the talk page here. But we're the only ones who've opined there. Please consider reviewing the recent edit history and then joining the discussion. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

If the sources do not support the information, as alleged, then it most certainly would be a violation. I don't have time to go through the sources right now, but I would suggest clearing that issue first. The next thing I see is that it most likely is undue simply because of where it is placed. It has nothing to do with his personal life, so it just sticks out like a sore thumb there. Rather, it should be in the section about his career. Otherwise, what you've got is a content dispute that should be resolved on the talk page. Zaereth (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux

Stefan Molyneux

Unreferenced sections and issues with statements tagged as backed up to only primary sources. Sagecandor (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Scotty Bowers (again)

• Scotty Bowers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't know whether to nominate it for deletion or boldly merge the page into Full Service (book). Now that the person who created the article is blocked, the time is now to discuss this article about the gossip-y prostitute. --George Ho (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Allen West (politician)

Allen West (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I want to get an outside opinion to avoid edit warring. I have reverted this diff twice now. It seems biased, and is poorly sourced. There's already two sentences about the incident in another part of the article. Following the incident, there have been multiple users coming to the page to either vandalize or add this diff. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved: Page protected.

Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure how protection helps. The incident is well-documented and the version in the article is imho watered down to the point where I can understand why it's being contested. This should be handled in the obvious way, on the talk page, which nobody seems to have posted to (except for a little bit of reverted vandlism) since an archive bot blanked it in February 2016. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

Refers to multiple living people in the article with dependence on poor sources Consortiumnews.com and CounterPunch with has been described as "extreme", "radical", "muckracking", etc.

Both those sources should be removed from this article, especially referring to WP:BLPs. Sagecandor (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Removed those sources from the article but could use some extra eyes on the article. Sagecandor (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

[4] and [5]. These edits by Tlroche (talk · contribs) violate WP:BLP and WP:RELIABLE as insertion of information about multiple living people to sources that fail reliable sources. User added material back, again. Sagecandor (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding User:Sagecandor's claim that

Consortiumnews.com and CounterPunch with has been described as "extreme", "radical", "muckracking", etc.

I note no cite for those quotes, which I suspect is because those claims are being made by known rightwing and neoconservative mouthpieces like AEI, Heritage, etc. Tlroche (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Those quotes are cited in the article CounterPunch to multiple sources including The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. Sagecandor (talk) 06:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's look at those quotes:

• Boot, Max (March 11, 2004). "The Fringe Fires at Bush on Iraq". LATimes: Max Boot! 'nuff said.
• The Assange allegations: from Richard Seymour
• NYT on SoundExchange:

  The list has received a lot of publicity online, and the Olsens, the Mormon choir and many others have been paid, but not without criticism directed at SoundExchange. Writing for the Web site of the political newsletter Counterpunch, at counterpunch.org, Fred Wilhelms, a lawyer who helps musicians with royalty payments, accused SoundExchange of moving slowly on purpose. "What happens to the money they can't pay because they can't find the person to pay?" he asked. "They get to keep it themselves. Nothing succeeds like failure."

• NYT on electricity deregulation:

  Nationally, electricity deregulation involves huge amounts of money. In CounterPunch, a muckraking newsletter published in Washington, D.C., the editors Ken Silverstein and Alexander Cockburn write that the amount is on a par with the savings and loan debacle of the 1980's. They call it a convulsion of huge importance and say that it will cost the public upwards of $500 billion. That is the amount, they say, that utilities have tied up in debt on their nuclear power plants and that they would like to pass along to ratepayers and taxpayers.

ISTM you need to work harder on your smear. Tlroche (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

User keeps reverting in info violating WP:BLP to sources that fail WP:RELIABLE at [6] and [7]. I will not revert again, so unfortunately for the time being the info violating BLP is still in the article. Sagecandor (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)