Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 7 days archived by ClueBot III.


Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:



Steve Salerno[edit]

I am the subject of the article, author/journalist Steve Salerno. I do not have an actual Wikipedia account. However, someone has defaced my page by including a reference to a tweet I made on Oct. 4, claiming that it is "highly controversial." In reality, as of today, Oct. 5, this "highly controversial" tweet has not received a single reply or retweet. I believe this to be malicious vandalism by someone with whom I briefly engaged, and then blocked, on Twitter. Certainly this addition to my page violates rules on neutrality and does not constitute a "noteworthy" addition to my bio.

here again is my page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Salerno — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:3:400:20AA:35A0:E925:3366 (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I see that you have already reverted it [1] and I do agree that this doesn't deserve to be included. If you are the subject of the article, the correct procedure is to to request an edit on the talk page of the article. You can refer to WP:EDITREQ for the instructions. Usually these requests are answered soon enough.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Does that policy still apply when it's a BLP violation? Those are typically supposed to be immediately removed. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Even if the removal can be justified on our policies and was uncontroversial, it can not be classified as vandalism, defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly, so per WP:COISELF, in the future you should request the edit as advised by DreamLinker. I have put the article on my watchlist and if it happens again I'll remove it myself. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not Steve Salerno. I just noticed this post above mine about Brian Leiter. 24.217.247.41 (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP, "Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." 208.53.226.179 (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Peter Handke[edit]

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

Hi again, I'm worried that the controversy section in Peter Handke (just announced as a Nobel Literature winner) takes up almost half the article in its current state. But I don't know enough about policies to know how much a problem this is or how it should be fixed. Isn't there something about undue weight? I don't seem to be able to find a relevant tag. Guidance or extra eyes appreciated! 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

For my part I don't think it's unreasonable that the controversies take up almost half Peter Handke. Especially with the recent Nobel Prize, which has drawn fresh international attention to these controversies. Bishonen | talk 21:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC).
Thanks for checking it out. Rewrites have drastically changed balance of article now - in the opposite direction, actually so maybe now there's not enough of the controversies? If you get a chance, I'd love to be pointed to the guideline for future. Really have no idea how to assess. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
You should read at least
  1. WP:PUBLICFIGURE (although subjects of a biography are not always public figures, it makes things easier to just assume they are)
  2. WP:BLPBALANCE
  3. WP:PROPORTION.
The first two are part of BLP policy and the last one is a part neutral point of view policy, which all biographies of living persons must adhere to. You were asking about undue weight, which is a policy within NPOV policy.
The essay Wikipedia:Criticism, especially WP:CSECTION, may prove useful to you, but note that it is an essay – not a policy or a guideline. Best practice is to just integrate criticism content into the article, but that is not always easy or even feasible.
If you are certain that you want to use a tag, you may open a discussion on the talk page and tag a section with {{Criticism section}}, with an edit summary noting that there is a discussion.
Even if it has been established that a controversy belongs to a biography, there is no mathematical formula that can exactly answer how much content should be included. Politrukki (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Clinton allegations at Epstein[edit]

WP:FORUMSHOPPING and insufficient prior discussion on article talk page. If no consensus is reached after extensive talk page discussion, suggest WP:RfC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talkcontribs) 02:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Well-sourced and relatively long-standing material was removed from the Jeffrey Epstein article. Editors are interpreting the BLP guidelines quite differently.

In the Epstein article, names and allegations, denials or responses from people such as Trump, Alan Dershowitz, Ghislaine Maxwell, Bill Richardson, Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton, are included. The section regarding Bill Clinton has been causing problems. A NYT article was used to state that a claim from Virginia Guffre in recently unsealed court documents about Clinton and his presence on Little Saint James Island was retracted. The article was not clear about exactly which claim they meant, and the NYT has been contacted about the error (no response yet).

There is no source to support the notion that the allegation was retracted, and many sources say the opposite, reporting on the allegation sans mention of any retraction. Sources which support the existence of the allegation include: Law and Crime, FORBES, TIME, AP, VICE, NY Mag, The Cut, Chicago Tribune, and Fox8.

The NYT piece was considered invalid for refuting the allegation because it was unclear which claim they said was retracted, and it fails WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS (see RS/N). @Aquillion: explained his understanding that without the NYT "retraction", the entire section containing the allegation should be removed, and he is insisting it remain off the page until we hear from the NYT.

Relevant talk page sections are:

My question is whether this removal is justified per WP:BLP, and whether waiting for the NYT to respond (which could be never) is justified? petrarchan47คุ 21:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on Talk:Jeffrey Epstein[edit]

There is a request for comment regarding claims related to Virginia Giuffre and Bill Clinton in the Jeffrey Epstein article. If you are interested, please participate at Talk:Jeffrey Epstein § RfC: Virginia Giuffre and Bill Clinton. — Newslinger talk 21:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Alexis_Kennedy[edit]

Wikipedia is painting a negative image of Alexis Kennedy using terms like "predatory behaviour" and "abusive".

The linked source articles state concrete behaviours he is accused of like: "made her feel uncomfortable with sexual comments", "being angry", cursing, not behaving according to common expectations of professionality and lying.

The words (the ones I mentioned above) wikipedia currently uses could be associated with different meanings and I do not find them expressing a neutral point of view. Like a (sexual) predator is a rapist.

Therefore I think the first part of the allegations should be rewritten and include more concrete statements of what he is accused instead of painting an unfairly negative (according to current sources) image of him. Attempts of me rewriting parts of it, not perfectly maybe, but at elast better than the current version, got undone very fast. Sources: https://medium.com/@wastebooks/alexis-kennedy-71044efc0ecf https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-08-30-two-women-accuse-cultist-simulator-developer-alexis-kennedy-of-exploitative-behaviour

Also "crosses professional boundaries" is not a clearly defined term. Is it common on wikipedia to publish accusations like that? (The reader doesn't know what the accusation exactly is).


Independent from what I wrote above I have a personal opinion on accusations: I would like to discuss if wikipedia is now a place were living persons can be publicy accused, especially without these accusations being proven. While I personally believe them based on the sources I read, having such information freely available about oneself on the internet can seriously harm ones reputation and therefore ones career. I also hold the moral value in esteem that everyone deserves a second chance - that is a life without being treated based on ones past deeds. I would hold that view even if someone commited murder. I'll also might check this accusation practice legally according to the German law which is the country in which I life and which should effect the German part of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:A66:3A0:346A:4003:F860:191A (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The version currently up there [2] seems fine. It is clear from existing text these are 1) only allegations, and 2) not criminal allegations, but exploitive behavior. The amount of detail is appropriate given that the allegations have impacted their company. Additionally, we cannot use Medium posts as sources at WP - they are user-generated content and not appropriate. I would agree with the change that MPS1992 did after this report: the language of "predator" and the like come directly from the accusers and should not be left unquoted, so the reworked content is still fair to the accusations made but removes inappropriate words spoken from wikivoice. --Masem (t) 21:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with the current version/changes from MPS1992 (17:17, 16 October 2019) being pretty good. Let's hope it stays that way or in that kind of writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:A66:3A0:E1D4:EFB6:2050:47D5 (talk)

Cameron Colvin[edit]

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

There is an ongoing content dispute between Double001007 and myself, about both the veracity of certain claims as well as the style in which they are presented. Here's what's verifiably known about Colvin: he was a blue chip wide receiver prospect in the high school class of 2004 (see Rivals), went on to have a humdrum career for the Oregon Ducks, suffered a major ankle injury midway through his senior year that effectively ended his NFL draft prospects (see ESPN), and eventually spent a couple of weeks in the 2008 off-season as training camp fodder for the San Francisco 49ers. More recently, he was portrayed in the movie When the Game Stands Tall (see Mercury News), so all in all I would say Colvin passes our notability criteria.

But now comes the fishy part: over the years, numerous single-purpose accounts added and re-added mostly unsourced puffery about Colvin's supposed business prowess and charity work. First there was Joscott1 on 27 December 2011, then UODuck07 on 14 October 2014, then Gossbull on 12 June 2015, and most recently Double001007 on 7 June 2017. It's not far-fetched to assume that these accounts are sock-puppets, and given that Double001007 referred to Colvin's article as "our page" I suspect the individual(s) behind these accounts is closely connected to the subject. Various clean-up attempts by DoctorKubla on 12 November 2012, Mike Selinker on 8 November 2015, Azcolvin429 on 9 April 2017, and most recently myself on 13 October 2019, were eventually reverted by the above mentioned SPAs.

Colvin seems to be a business person of some stature, judging by the brief mentions in reliable sources (see The Oregonian), but claims of a billion-dollar business empire clearly seem to be inflated (Side note: at some point, JenRod1990 poked fun at the comical hyperbole in this article, which then was reverted by Double001007.) If I had to guess, I would say Colvin himself is behind all the fawning SPAs above, abusing Wikipedia as means of self-promotion. And quite frankly, we've seen even crazier things here over the years (remember Giovanni Strassini?). Anyhow, since this is at this point a content dispute between Double001007 and myself, I was looking for third opinions. --bender235 (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Bastyr University[edit]

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

Bastyr University currently includes an alumni section. Of the five people listed only two currently have articles. The other three are non-notable individuals who would not qualify for articles, and who appear to be listed to criticise Bastyr. Should we be including people who would not qualify for articles, and/or should we be using these people to criticise Bastyr? - Bilby (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I would not include them. I can see the case of a notable news story about a university where former named students came back to seek legal action or some other factor. While we can certainly say they were alumni (assuming they graduated) they do not belong on a school's "notable alumni" list, which only should be blue linked name. --Masem (t) 21:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I removed the names since they do not seem to be notable individuals as required under WP:LISTPEOPLE. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Pinging Alexbrn, who has reinserted the names. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:LISTPEOPLE is guidance for standalone list articles isn't it? (and even so, exceptions would apply to people famous for an event). Alexbrn (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant to cite WP:ALUMNI, which says "Alumni to be included should meet Wikipedia notability criteria". – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
That's just an essay. I think trimming this to a list of two would be odd. I'm not averse to reworking the material somehow to avoid a list. Alexbrn (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
There have been discussions elsewhere on this issue, which is what led to WP:Alumni and the approach we've used before. From my view, if the people are not notable, and would not qualify for an article, then we leave them out to avoid situations where the university is being used to promote non-notable indivudals or to denigrate them. In this case they are not notable, but are being highlighted so as to criticise the university, which is not something we should do with living people. - Bilby (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I also think there are BLP concerns when using a university's article to criticize alumni who are not notable. What about putting D'Adamo and Hermes into the "Criticism" section, or adding content about Hermes there and putting D'Adamo in a "See also" section? – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@Bilby: That's an argument about intent, which is bogus: we cannot help how reality is, it's not our problem to fix. If this was a standalone article people who are not Notable but who were verifiably famous for an incident would merit inclusion per the actual WP:PAGs (not some essay). There is also of course a WP:FRINGE aspect to this in that Wikipedia must make it plain how the wider world of reason reacts. I think this material may be re-workable to avoid a list in any case. How about that? Alexbrn (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not inclined to pretend that the intent is something other than what it was. However, they are not "verifiably famous" for an incident, so this is moot. There's a distinction between "limited coverage online" and "verifiably famous" - the latter of which would potentially qualify for an article, the former would not. - Bilby (talk) 04:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
In the case of Michael T Murray, neither of the cited sources describe him as an alumnus of the university. One doesn't mention the establishment at all, while the other refers to him only as a faculty member. Perhaps he should go from the Alumni section unless a source can be found. Neiltonks (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Good catch! Bastyr claim him as one of theirs though[3] so this is fixable. Alexbrn (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I actually looked at the three names being added, and even considering their non-notability, it is a massive BLP to be discussing their "wrongdoings" in a list of alumni, per BLP crime. Alumni list should be very brief, name and what they do today (see something like List of University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill alumni). It is absolutely NOT the place to be trying to lay accusations against those people or to the university or any other coatracking. If they are blue-linked and can be confirmed to have gone there, then they can stay but without the coatracking. If not, then they don't belong, and certainly not anything questioning them or the people. I know this is an "alternative medicine" school so there's going to be a lot of doubt about who they produce, but put that in context of the school, not the alumni. --Masem (t) 13:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
      • WP:BLPCRIME refers very specifically to criminality, not "wrongdoing". This would seem to be a misapplication of policy to "win" a content dispute. What is more, mentioning the blood type diet without also mentioning it's dangerous/bogus is not NPOV. I will raise a query at WP:FT/N because there are WP:PSCI / WP:FRINGE issues here. Alexbrn (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
        • Same principal applies. Non-notable people that have been marked in sources of wrongdoing - even if it is things like pushing pseudoscience - should not be called out for that. If the person is notable, and there's criticism of their pseudoscience, put that on the person's bio. If there's issues with the college, put that in a criticism of the college, but don't attach it to a non-notable person. BLP is very clear what is appropriate in these cases. --Masem (t) 13:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
          • I disagree (unless you can point me to the "very clear" policy). Wikipedia articles mention "wrongdoing" by non-notable people all the time, whether it be research fraud, making questionable claims or selling dodgy products. If what you said was correct large swathes of the encyclopedia would need to be re-written (starting with the blood type diet perhaps, which clearly identifies its chief proponent). Alexbrn (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
            • If there is a standalone page for a person, it is reasonable within UNDUE, and BLP (including a whole host of issues there) to discuss notable criticisms about them on their page. It is a coatrack to bring it up on unrelated pages where that person is mentioned unless it is essential to discuss on the other subject. (For example, we could have a case of a "doctor" that is notable as well as their fad diet that is seperately notable. Criticism aimed at the doctor's credentials would clearly be fine on the doctor's page, and may also be appropriate on the fad diet page if part of the criticism of the diet is due to the doctor's credentials). That's not the case here: even for your blue-linked names, what they did after Bastyr has no relevancy to Bastyr, so the criticism should stay on their page. And just adding non-notables to add criticism to them is against BLP, BLPCRIME, and PUBLICFIGURE (non-notable, so definitely not public figures). --Masem (t) 14:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
              • Well that's an interesting take, but it's not policy - and I think it would create problems for our requirement for neutrality if applied wholesale. Why do you say "what they did after Bastyr has no relevancy to Bastyr" when RS makes that very connection? Alexbrn (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
                • Let's take [4] which is about D'Adamo. It mentions Bastyr three times, twice identifying it as D'Adamo alma mater, and once in an aside comment about dubious academic practices. That's not a sufficient connection to be trying to call out criticism of D'Adamo on the Bastyr page, though can be used to support criticism of Bastyr's dubious academic program without mentioning D'Adamo's name. --Masem (t) 14:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Non notability should not be circumventable by inclusion in articles about other subjects. For a start wp:weight comes into it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Edward Skyler[edit]

Hi, I’m Jennifer and I work with Ed at Citi. We noticed a recent edit to his article related to our 2018 announcement of a U.S. Commercial Firearms Policy, which contains editorialized language and therefore doesn’t adhere to a neutral point of view. As a suggestion, this should be presented with a more balanced view that captures the range of reactions from Citi employees, customers and clients. This New York Times story quotes Citi’s CEO and presents more detail on this. An alternative suggestion to edit would be to simply remove the language that follows the link to the policy. Can someone please review these suggestions? LowneyJen (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the content as it was basically unsourced, relying only on the Citigroup blog which is insufficient to say he was influential in drafting that policy and also doesn't say it was criticised. If anyone wants to add it back, they will need to find reliable secondary sources to establish both that it's something significant regarding Edward Skyler and that the criticism extended to his role. Nil Einne (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your review, Nil Einne. LowneyJen (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Jelena Dokic[edit]

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

Defamatory diffs: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

I've semi-protected the page for a month and will keep an eye on things to see if that needs to be longer or if the level needs to be increased. - Bilby (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Bilby, shouldn't the diffs be deleted/restricted/hidden since they contain defamatory claims? Archer1234 (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Done. - Bilby (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Celeste Beard[edit]

It says "her sons" ( in the trial segment), Celeste Beard didn't have sons, she had daughters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.140.144.232 (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

List of self-identifying LGBTQ New Yorkers[edit]

Was trying to start a conversation about a new article ( 11:47, October 18, 2019‎) that should be deleted our sourced but all the tags and deletion tlak was removed. Got some serious issues with zero sources here.

  • WP:BLPSOURCE- This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article.
  • WP:BLPREMOVE - Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced.
  • Wikipedia:Libel -I t is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified.
What do others think??? --Moxy 🍁 16:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
No, the list and collage (of only list members) have been building for several years on LGBT culture in New York City, but the list itself has become too large to maintain on the parent page. Built by several editors over years, every single entry is either wikilinked to an article that comports self-identification as LGBT or has a separate reference cited; remember, these are all SELF-IDENTIFYING members as LGBT. Unless they have already SELF-IDENTIFIED as LGBT, they don't go on this list. Castncoot (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Not sure how it being unsourced for years somewhere else helps here with WP:LISTVERIFY. We have many protocols in place for just an article of this nature.--Moxy 🍁 16:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Again, is there something that you know that several editors haven't thought about and discussed over several years? If you find a single example of an unverified statement on the living person's actual page, then please remove the claim from that page first before you remove from the new page. But that's no reason to gut an entire article. As far as I know, every single entry has comported. Of course we want to build an article that meets all BLP verification standards. Castncoot (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Again not sure how old tlaks about an unsourced list helps with complying with our policies on BIOS ...can we add 100 sources...do we have them as you imply.?-Moxy 🍁 17:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
????- With the spelling and grammar fallacies in your sentence, I'm not even sure what you are trying to ask. I actually have to leave this forum for now to take care of real life matters at this time. I believe that multiple editors have been diligent and careful over the past several years. Castncoot (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • ...Lets...stick with WP:BLPREMOVE, and perhaps ponder the assumptions inherent in saying it's "defamatory libel" to say someone is gay. GMGtalk 17:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It's a sad thing that being called "gay" is still a slur. Yes, that is part of why I removed it--the BLP issues (misrepresentation, forced outing, etc.). But more importantly, I do not believe that such a list, with all of its problems, should NOT be in an article on a topic that requires text and sources, not lists of names. It's a lazy and all-too easy form of producing content, and it's not valid content. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Guess you didn't read the title carefully- SELF-IDENTIFYING LGBTQ New Yorkers. This is exactly why we have over ten thousand list articles on Wikipedia. And who are you or anybody else to decide that gay should be considered BY WIKIPEDIA, this ENCYCLOPEDIA, to be "bad" ? Or "good"? Or a "valid" topic? The ONLY standard for inclusion should be WP:NOTABILITY. Let's inform some of the other primary/major editors of the parent LGBT culture in New York City article that this discussion is even occurring: Figurefour44, Collier09, Chrish65. Castncoot (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
      • WP:PROVEIT --Moxy 🍁 23:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
        • Prove what? Give these other editors some time to answer. Castncoot (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
          • "Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, and they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations."--Moxy 🍁 23:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
          • You know, I've never heard of a spelling or grammar fallacy. However, if I may point out, your argument has many fallacies in it, including but not limited to straw-man fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam, circulus in probando (circle in proving), and onus probandi (burden of proof), if that helps. In short, Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. We can't just link to another article and say, there, go look it up for yourself. There needs to be a reliable source, showing that each and every one on that list has self-identified, next to the names of each person. It's not up to me nor anyone else to click every link and scour every individual article for the source needed (if one even exists). It's up to the person who wants the info in to provide the proof.

            Aside from that, I don't see how such a list serves any real purpose other than to divide, label, and stereotype. Regardless of the good intentions, psychological studies have shown time and again that the net result is the same. Human sexuality is far more diverse than five mere letters. More diverse than all 26. An example of a good list (not a great one) would be, say, List of logical fallacies. It's informative, for the most part sourced, and provides links to the main articles where a person can learn more. (You'd be surprised how many Vulcans on Star Trek make totally illogical statements.) The list of New Yorkers doesn't really tell me anything. It's just a list of names under a vague label. Zaereth (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

            • Zaereth, thank you. I believe you are correct in many of the points you make: Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia, and while we allow for lists that aren't completely verified for "notable citizens" in articles on cities, for instance, this is something else.

              Castncoot, I'd appreciate it if you yelled a bit less. Your comments here are needlessly aggressive, and this edit summary was, besides untrue, insulting. "This has been discussed before"--sure. And above you said "remove it from the article on the person if something isn't right"--no, that is not good or useful advice, and it's not how we work. You have been told by a few people now that the list is a BLP violation, and maybe you were wrong in saying that it wasn't.

              As for article writing--if 25% of an article was a list, it was not a good article to begin with. Besides, what makes one a New Yorker? Does your list contain anyone with any connection to New York? What if they didn't come out until they left Brooklyn for Youngstown, Ohio? Does Keith McDermott actually live, or still live, in NYC? And while he was there, was he in fact part of LGBTQ culture in that city? (The only reference for that BLP is a blacklisted link, which is both incomplete and unreliable, so maybe you should go through all those articles.) The NYC connection for Bradford Shellhammer is tenuous and poorly verified. [[Joel Spolsky] moved to NYC in 1995 and was said to live in Manhattan now, but there's nothing about the in-between, or about what he means for LGBTQ culture there, and those facts are verified only from his own website. Similar with Wolfgang Busch, whose NYC/LGBTQ connection is possibly verified in one of the only two sources in his article--the one published by iUniverse. I could go on, but that's not my job: it is yours.

              If I were to write an article on some culture in some place, I would make damn sure that the persons I include in the article have contributed verifiably and significantly to whatever the article is about. And that is the odd thing about the article: take out the list, and there's a serious dearth of people (it's like the copy of the city of Rock Ridge in Blazing Saddles); there isn't even a sentence on Andy Warhol. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Ah. Didn't know this list had been discussed here. I've just moved it to Castncoot's userspace so that citations to the self-identification (and residence in NYC) can be made without the list remaining in mainspace, where it is in fact not okay under BLP as it stands right now. Others can help Castncoot add the citations if they wish. Risker (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
That actually sounds very responsible. ...give them time to add sources. We can debate the category fork if need be later.--Moxy 🍁 02:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Why include "self-identifying"? It just makes it seem like we are casting doubt on whether they are actually what they say they are. We do use "identified as" and "self-identified" in the case of something like demographics of sexual orientation, but that's for reasons the lead of that article addresses. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, the title of the article should match the title of the main article when it comes to the initialism "LGBT." Our Wikipedia article titles use "LGBT" instead of "LGBTQ." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Erm, the term "self-identified" is repeated here because that is the term used by the original author, who is commenting in this thread. A change in title can be made if and when the article is sufficiently sourced for mainspace. Risker (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I know who the author is. My question is for Castncoot as well. It's especially for Castncoot since I assume that's the title the author will want to use. It is, after all, the title that Castncoot used before the material was moved to user space. I have no issue with working other stuff out first. I won't be involved with the article unless it's about what to name it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I do have a significant issue with this as I am seeing all of this for the first time and am blindsided, and I request more discussion and reconsideration here. First of all, there was no urgency or even indication to have done this any more than with the following BLP List articles, which are simply routine examples and bellwethers of thousands of others: List of Mexican Americans, List of Turkish Americans, List of actors with Academy Award nominations, or even within the list of notable examples in LGBT culture in San Francisco or any other sibling "LGBT culture in fill-in-the-blank city" article. The vast majority of the names of notable entries from all of these BLP articles here are NOT sourced in-line but are simply wikilinked to direct to their respective subject page, where the particular subject identification is sourced (or simply uncontested). This is exactly why we have List articles in the first place, and they are supposed to function this way. This particular article is apparently being held to a different BLP standard with a significantly higher burden. I not only strongly object to this status but in fact, find it very concerning for the sake of the overall project, because "LGBT" should not be ranked for its supposed "noteworthiness" among infinite other List topics like ethnicity or race (which is also a highly multi-dimensional, complex, and variegated issue) or nationality. The only criteria for inclusion is WP:NOTABILITY, which inherently includes verifiability, and this is a binary metric- an entry is either consensused to be notable or to be not notable for the purposes of inclusion in WIkipedia. I could justifiably create an article titled "List of bald actors" or "List of actors who brush their teeth at least 20 hours per day", as long as they meet notability criteria, and the topics of these articles cannot be objectively deemed to be any more or less "noteworthy" or "valid" than other topics. Castncoot (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@Risker: I appreciate your thoughtful and courteous note and intentions on my Talk page. But that doesn't change the fact that this has been pushed to an article name that contains my User ID without even the courtesy of informing me apriori. I was waiting for the other major editors of the parent LGBT culture in New York City article to weigh in first with their suggestions toward consensus, and I ask that they be given a chance to make their views known before we come up with a consensus solution here. As I've mentioned above, there was and is certainly no urgency to have taken the article out of the mainspace while the discussion is occurring, as otherwise you might as well eliminate the entire genre of the thousands of List articles in Wikipedia altogether. Having to in-line source every single entry that has taken several years to compile will be a Herculean task for me, which I would actually have no objection to if it weren't the only List article being held to this standard. Castncoot (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: I much agree with you that the term "self-identifying" shouldn't be necessary in the title, but I believe there has generally been consensus for this across the project in order to avoid the perception of outing anyone. All of the listed personalities in this article have already come out as openly queer. Castncoot (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@Zaereth: Really? Are your obviously pre-packaged insults supposed to impress me? They don't, and they're not constructive here. Castncoot (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
It's not an insult to point out the validity of one's argument. That you choose to see it that way says a lot. Believe it or not, my comments were designed to help, not hurt. But then again this is another example of a straw-man. Zaereth (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Castncoot, those other hypothetical and real lists you've described are not about the sexual identity of the subjects of the list. Sexual identity is a deeply personal matter, and it is very much the policy of this project to respect the privacy of the sexual identity of individuals unless they themselves choose to share this information publicly. This is one of the most hardline rules of this project, and even by moving the article to your userspace in order to give you a chance to reference it, I am bending that rule. I would delete the article before moving it to draftspace; it would have been deleted if it remained in article space. I've given you an option. If you don't want to take it, please say so now and I'll just delete it and put this whole issue to bed. I respect how much work it took to build up that article and am mostly disappointed that you didn't add the references at the time of creating each individual entry; I've made the assumption that you actually verified that the articles of each person on that list have a link that confirms they have publicly stated their sexual identity, so it shouldn't be too onerous to complete. You could probably ask for help at a suitable wikiproject. Risker (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Castncoot, I'm saying that lists such as List of bisexual people (A–F), List of pansexual people and List of non-binary people don't have "self-identifying" in the title. This is because the people listed should already have self-identified as such before being listed as such. Of course, the rules for living people are stricter per WP:BLP, but there should be strong sourcing before we list even a deceased person as bisexual, pansexual, or otherwise LGBT. I haven't seen any agreement across Wikipedia that "self-identifying" should be in the titles. The examples I've pointed to indicate that. "Self-identifying" in the title is redundant and is in poor taste because it implies "according to them," as if anyone else's opinion should trump their identity as if their identities are disputed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
That stated, I can see editors arguing that "self-identifying" is needed because the list is specifically about those who have self-identified as such and it's not to include people who are simply reported as such by the media or others. If that is what you are stating, I get it. But the scope of the article can be that way without such wording in the title, especially if editors are adhering to our WP:BLP policy. I don't know why List of people with non-binary gender identities isn't at the simpler "List of non-binary people" title. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Flyer22, Risker, Drmies, etc... I was really surprised Risker let it stay in your userspace, because BLP rules apply there as well. I think that was a very nice gesture, which they did not need to do. It seems like an easy fix for someone so passionate about it, so I don't understand the resistance, but if you have no intention of sourcing it, then please let Risker know so we can get rid of it. And Flyer22 is right, the title itself is poor grammatical construction, or a syntax error. "Self-identifying" here is a present-tense participle, as if they are saying it right now, and that does give the connotation of lying about it, ie: "He's saying he's innocent." The past tense would be the proper participle, but is redundant per our strict BLP rules. Zaereth (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate Risker's gesture and will work on the page under that title - I was just very surprised to find it there, that's my point. Any help would be much appreciated. In the meantime, what are we going to do about lists on "LGBT culture in ..." San Francisco, Los Angeles, London, and other cities? Also, "self-identified" versus "self-identifying" aside, what Flyer22 Reborn and I were talking about was the issue of needing any qualifier at all. I would have no issue with dropping the qualifier altogther or using "self-identified." Castncoot (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Don't worry about those other articles, at this point. Focus on this article and this article only. I'm going to start the clock on getting this referenced, and I suggest that anything you can't reference by 0600 UTC on Thursday October 24, 2019 needs to come out of the article. If I had to reference a list quickly, I'd pull up the list in one tab, create a new short-term page for those entries I couldn't immediately reference from the subject's article in another tab, and use a third tab to serially go through the articles about the entries. The reference sources need to be high quality (the one reference source included by someone else in this list doesn't even confirm that the subject belongs to any LGBT category) and it needs to have the subject confirming their sexual identity, at a minimum; the NYC stuff could probably come later, but it's also important to include since it's one of the two criteria for inclusion. I've picked the deadline because it's a time I should be online and will be able to verify it and move it to article space under the title "List of LGBT New Yorkers"; I will check the references too, and when it is moved, only the appropriately referenced entries will be included. Please keep in mind that there is no deadline and articles can be expanded and improved over time. Risker (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
That's a deal. Castncoot (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Hmph. I would lean WP:AFD, on WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY grounds. It's synthetic, non-encyclopedic "who's who" page, what the CfD crowd call a trivial intersection.  — AReaderOutThatawayt/c 11:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing issues in Billy Mitchell biography[edit]

Since late July, administrator Sergecross73 has taken a series of administrative actions that appear to me to lower the quality of Wikipedia's Billy Mitchell biography and present Mitchell in a significantly worse light than he'd otherwise be presented. Yesterday Sergecross73 closed five relevant discussions and removed them from the article's talk page. I've been planning to make further contributions to those discussions as time allows, and I'm wondering whether there's a way to have them restored to the talk page and reopoened. Thanks for your time. 208.53.226.179 (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Archiving discussions is a way of keeping the page accessible to users. Per WP:TALKCOND you are technically allowed to unarchive a discussion if you feel it was archived prematurely. However, if your goal is to promote more discussion, then you should probably let the old threads die and start a new thread for your comments. Also: make sure that you're not just tilting at windmills. If the previous consensus was against you, adding more commentary isn't going to change anything. Nblund talk 16:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, there's a lot of nonsense related to Mitchell and a few others coming from forums, etc. that are clearly not going to be included until reported in RSes (which given the type of comments being made -- no they will not). Mitchell is a controversal figure and we documenting the stuff that can be reported (removed high scores, etc.) but the discussions that were closed and archived were no longer about stuff that would be going on the main space page. Sergecross was fully right to archive those and restore order. --Masem (t) 16:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. And yes, there’s very little in active dispute after the page has been protected too. The IP just likes to talk circles and argue and cast aspersions. They refuse to suggest specific requests with specific changes, it’s most off-topic rambling and complaining. Every time, it’s “okay, make a request edit-request style about what it should be then”, and every time they refuse and keep complaining. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
────Thanks again to Nblund and Masem for your time. Since July, editor Wallyfromdilbert has made a series of revisions that seem to present Mitchell in the worst light he thinks he can get away with, and administrator Sergecross73 has taken a series of administrative actions to ensure that Wallyfromdilbert never has to clarify the reasons for those revisions or engage in any back-and-forth discussion whatsoever. Removing the linked discussion of apparent WP:NEUTRAL violations from the talk page is only one recent example. Per Wikipedia's protection policy WP:PP, temporary semi-protection may be applied to pages subject to edit warring only when all parties involved are unregistered or new editors, and not when autoconfirmed users are involved. Setting aside the fact that the page hasn't been subject to edit warring, the policy says explicitly that semi-protection shouldn't be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in content disputes. Sergecross73 has repeatedly violated that policy by using semi-protection to privilege Wallyfromdilbert over IP editors, citing a dubious or absurd pretext for doing so each time. Per Wikipedia's talk page guidelines WP:TPG, I'm tentatively planning to unarchive discussions of these matters that Sergecross73 has archived prematurely and make further contributions to those discussions as time allows. Does Wikipedia have any formal policies pertinent to the removal of an administrator under any circumstances? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
To clarify, the page was first protected because this person (under various IP) were edit warring without a consensus for their change. The second protection came after this person, right after protection ended, forced their new proposal (more or less the same thing) into the article without consensus and was immediate reverted by another. The proposal not only has zero support, but was proposed and rescinded over the course of two days and zero input, so it was just continuing the same edit warring without consensus. The third and current protection is largely from IPs unrelated to this one and their blatant vandalism. Most of the subsequent discussions are just the IP coming up with bizarre theories as to why everyone is out to get him or the subject, when it’s as basic as what I outlined above. To be clear, I have made zero edits to the article outside protection, and have no views on the subject other than policies need to be followed. Sergecross73 msg me 22:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Multiple unrelated editors have told you it’s best to keep the discussions archived, so this makes it rather clear that you’re more concerned about arguing and complaining than engaging in constructive discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 22:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I archive discussions because they ran for months and lead to zero constructive changes. They constantly devolve into arguing and off-topic ramblings. Furthermore, the IP addresses refuse to use the WP:EDITREQUEST system, and have a very hard time suggesting specific changes with specific sources, so editors rarely make changes on their behalf. It is their own fault that they never get anywhere. The messages were archived in hopes that more constructive discussions would come from it. The IPs have yet to learn that it’s rare to get new participation, or anyone reading it at all, when you add the twentieth multi-paragraph dissertation in a discussion thread. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: We agree that the discussions have often been driven off-topic by rambling comments, but we disagree about which of us is making them. My comments tend to be longer than yours mainly because correcting lies is more difficult than telling them. You keep pushing me to make formal edit requests, but you assure me that those requests will be "inevitably rejected" before you even know what they are. It really doesn't seem reasonable to trust you as the mediator of any discussion in which I'm a participant. Regarding your suggestion that I "have a very hard time suggesting specific changes with specific sources", let me provide this link to the proposed compromise that ultimately deprived me of the ability to assume good faith in our discussions. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I said that an edit request based off of that particular proposal would inevitably fail. And I stand by it - you wanted to make BLP edits according to social media handles and a free Intellius report. Those aren’t reliable sources. But there’s no rational reason why that comment should keep you from ever trying to use the system even once. That ludicrous reasoning. Sergecross73 msg me 23:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I have to ask, do you have a COI? Because the "proposed compromise" reeks of what someone with a COI would write. It's definitely not a good solution for the article whatever the problems it may have. (Hint, this is an article on Billy Mitchell the father. Not an article on how his son is the best American footballer in the world or whatever.) And since you chose to give it as your example of when you proposed changes but were rejected, you're making me and probably others think you don't actually have good suggestions for improving the article. (Although to be fair, you almost definitely had a point on the sister issue. But this seems to have been resolved since I find no mention of a sister in the current article suggesting that the genuine problems are being resolved and your complaints over them being ignored are largely without merit.) While you're not required to disclose a COI unless it crosses into WP:PAID territory, on a personal level I may be inclined to help someone with a COI if they are honest in some ways that's one of the cornerstones of BLP. But not so much when they chose to hide it, I just can't be bothered especially when the evidence suggests their complaints are mostly without merit. Nil Einne (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Anyway regardless of any COI, if you want to make changes to the article, you should start off with making simply proposals for change on the article talk page. You need to give the actual wording you want, not just random stuff other sources say. But think carefully about the wording since ultimately if it's too promotional or simply too long, people are likely to just say so and not bother to work with you to fix it given how much time you seem to have already wasted on the talk page. Also make sure you have reliable sources cited in line and supporting whatever you are proposing. We clearly aren't going to use a Twitch livestream of an event as a sole RS for any information. It's pointless telling people there is a source but you didn't cite it, you need to actual cite this in your proposed change. In other words, your proposed change needs to be the sort of thing someone could just copy and paste into the article and be done with it. If it isn't, don't be surprised if your requests are mostly ignored given the aforementioned reason. Once you've learnt how to do this successfully, maybe you will be able to make more substantive proposals for change. Nil Einne (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Ron Kingston (musician)[edit]

Propose deletion, non notable singer, no record label or any sale history online. Bands mentioned on his page have no mention of him on their page. One isnt even a band "vogon poetry".

no notable references from any print media. all youtube, artist direct etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.211.160.222 (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

You can use the template {{Proposed deletion}} to propose it for deletion. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Someone removed the PROD (as they're perfectly entitled to do, of course). I've sent it to AFD for a more in-depth discussion. Neiltonks (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Joel Gilbert[edit]

This article needs attention. I reverted this edit that added a lot of sketchy sources (e.g. this source from the "American Greatness" blog) supporting the idea that the Trayvon Martin shooting was a hoax. I have zero experience with dealing with the tin-foil hat crowd, so bringing it here in the hopes that someone can deal with it. I recall that some of the recent attention may have come from a Reddit post, but cannot remember which part of Wikipedia I saw that admission in.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I remembered where I saw the editors: more info at SPI. Also Pinging @Newslinger:, who filed the SPI. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The SPI, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sweethominy, is the oldest investigation on the list that is still open. The next-oldest investigation was opened almost a month after this one. I'm not sure what else to do but wait. — Newslinger talk 04:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Malcolm Jenkins[edit]

Last sentence of introductory paragraph states Malcolm Jenkins is the son of Dak Prescott. I do not know the name of Malcolm Jenkins’ father; however, this could be inaccurate information by referring to Dak Prescott of the Dallas Cowboys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7B80:6B40:F1A6:C5BC:A842:CDB9 (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Felix Sater[edit]

I am bringing this here because a new user (User:Silverbulldog) is removing sourced information that includes the claim that Felix Sater is "a Russian-American mobster". That would seem reasonable except this is exactly how multiple sources refer to Sater. American Interest

"By then young Felix Sater was already well on his way to a career as a prototypical Russian-American mobster."

Fullerton Observer

"In 2015, Cohen began communicating with Felix Sater, a Russian-American mobster, felon, and real estate advisor regarding the Moscow project, as Sater had numerous Russian contacts and had previously worked with the Trump Organization."

Daily News

"It was in response to Rouda questions Feb. 27 that Cohen said Trump lied in a deposition when the president claimed not to know Russian-American mobster Felix Sater."

Vanity Fair

"I spent time in each of those different kingdoms. I spent time with Chris Steele [the former British intelligence officer who wrote the dossier claiming Russia collected a file of compromising evidence on Trump] and Felix Sater [a Russian-American mobster who served as an adviser to the Trump Organization], to give you both ends of the spectrum."

I am sure there are more examples, but you get my point. The user is also removing sourced information about Sater's wife. I don't want to get into an edit war with this user so it would be nice if people kept an eye on it. Thanks. Bitter Oil (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The Fullerton Observer, Daily News, and Vanity Fair sources all post date the inclusion of the term in our article, and are passing mentions in sources not primarily about the article subject; it can be reasonably inferred that they are citogenetic. - Ryk72 talk 05:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Those were just the first few examples that came up. There are a lot of hits. If you were to leave out the "Russian-American" qualifier, I'm sure you could find even more. I don't want to spend too much time on searching out links for this, but here are a few [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. There's about a decade's worth of reporting suggesting that Sater is a mobster, usually in those exact words. Bitter Oil (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Silverbulldog left a message on my talk page. I'm going to copy it here since I have neither the time nor inclination to help them with this. Bitter Oil (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Just for the sake of procedure, I have also warned Silverbulldog about COI editing. The artcile's talk page already lists several editors who have been blocked for this. Bitter Oil (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello Bitter Oil,

I'm writing to seek a bit more guidance on wiki regarding Felix Sater's page. You've realized that I'm a new user, though it's definitely indicative of the lack of credibility on my part, purely for being a new user, I was hoping you could extend to me some guidance. I also know of no other ways to have a conversation here but on a talk page, so i apologize in advance if this is a bit invasive. I have 3 questions to my 3 edits.

The sources mentioned for Felix Sater being a mobster is not fully conclusive, as it's very likely they pulled their research off of Wikipedia, notably, the Fullerton article. Additionally, Daily News merely reiterated the words of Congressman Rouda during Michael Cohen's public testimony which I do not believe qualifies as a well researched source from a reporting agency. The Vanity fair article as well was written way after the original description of Mobster was added to Felix Sater's Wiki page. I would like guidance on this as to what proper citation would be needed where available online can definitely label Felix Sater as a mobster ? Because in its existing form, the moniker does not even have a citation to it. Mobster after all, is a very detrimental label to anybody.

Moving on to Felix Sater being divorced. I've cited a page six article, it seems to be the only source online that shows that he was served divorce papers. Would page six be a reliable source? I've linked it here for your review. https://pagesix.com/2019/03/24/trump-russian-associate-gets-served-divorce-papers/ Additionally, none of the cited sources for Felix Sater's marriage to Viktoria explicitly mentions that they're both married. In this case, is it allowed because it is implied that they are married even though it's never explicitly mentioned in any of the sources? Please advice.

Finally, The connection to Semion Mogilevich. The one source, if you read it, does NOT make that mention at all. I'm confused as to why it was accepted as a source. Doing some research online, it's listed here https://trump-russia.com/2019/07/20/time-to-put-a-lie-about-felix-sater-to-rest/ that it was entirely made up if there ever was a connection. If you read the article with a bit more research, the attorney that made the initial statement was referred to criminal contempt by a district judge, this, alongside with the fact that the entire thing was made up and the site owner had to settle for spreading disinformation, ordered by the courts.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this on why my edits are being undone. It might be in large part to my non-existent history on wikipedia or I'm not following proper guidelines, but if anything, I'd like to be guided through the right steps. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Silverbulldog (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Bowraville murders[edit]

The suspect has been acquitted of two of the three killings, the third never going to trial. Last year the High Court of Australia ruled he wouldn't be retried due to double jeopardy law. His name is currently subject to a suppression order, though it was published previously. I recently removed an uncited claim that he was the "only suspect". Clearly he should at least be afforded the presumption of innocence under Wikipedia policy. I am also concerned that the title is "Bowraville murders" when there is no court finding that anyone has been murdered, and one of the bodies has never been found. Can or should anything further be done?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The suspect name is not mentioned so WP:BLPCRIME does not seem to be an issue. As far as the title, multiple sources do use the term murder so personally, I don't see a BLP violation there. If secondary sources state that there is no court findings that anyone has been murdered that could also be added to the article. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The suspect name is now listed, but it clearly shouldn't be, per WP:BLPCRIME. "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured". He was acquitted, and it appears that the NSW AG's efforts to get a new trial have failed, so it doesn't seem at all likely that he ever will be convicted. I've deleted the person's name from the article. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you.
1. I'm not sure removing the suspect's name settles the issue. Does this mean there's no problem with claims that he is the "only suspect" or the evidence was "strong", so long as they are appropriately cited? I removed them previously because they were uncited. However, plenty of sources continue to assert he was the killer, so I'm sure citations could be found. The entire article could be constructed into the case against the suspect. Is that OK? Anyone who wants to find out his name can do so easily. Essentially the article would then be cited that a man who was acquitted is actually guilty. Is that OK?
2. WP:BLPCRIME refers to someone accused who hasn't been convicted. Does the fact that the suspect has been acquitted make any difference? Should he still be referred to as a "suspect" after his acquittals? If he was entitled to the presumption of innocence before his acquittals, is he now entitled to an assertion of innocence?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thomas Bilyeu[edit]

Article reads more like an PR firm entry than something constructed in an organic way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.67.16.32 (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Haggai Carmon[edit]

Haggai Carmon has been tagged for paid editing for eight months. The creating account has been checkuser blocked. I know this subject in real life and will not edit this article. However, I consider it improper to brand a BLP with a red warning template indefinitely. Could somebody uninvolved please decide whether to clean up the article or nominate it for deletion? It should not remain in limbo any longer as this may be damaging to the subject. There is no proof that he paid anybody to edit it, which is the obvious inference a reader would make. As such, the red warning template is itself a BLP violation. I would welcome a general discussion about better ways to handle this kind of situation. Jehochman Talk 23:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)