Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

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

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

---

Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

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

Nicholas Schorsch

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

The wikipedia article seems to include everything up to June 2014, when in October 29, 2014, his company American Realty Capital, reported accounting errors that had been previously covered up in q2 2014 10-q. His company has since fractured, he has been rumored to be investigated by the FBI, the SEC and the State of Massachusetts for everything regarding the accounting scandal to allegations concerning proxy voter manipulation. He had a lot of his other non work related positions tarnished, and has had to close down his business. This article only shows the Nick Schorsch everyone in the industry knew of before the bombshells dropped. Its a less extreme example of only writing a wikipedia article on Bernie Madoff that only goes up to June 2008.

Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation)

At Talk:Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation)#Heilman statement and Talk:Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation)#Let's start afresh There is a disagreement about whether this edit[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] is a BLP violation. I would like some experienced eyes to look it over and comment about whether the statement is a BLP violation. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It is referenced. And I did state something similar but stated that it was only part of the reason. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Doc James, that was the old wording. QuackGuru (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

1. A source says "The first response appears to have been the dismissal of board member James Heilman, who was critical of the project."[9]
2. A source says "The speculation and the struggle for information culminated in the fact that the Community elected representatives James Heilman from the "Board of Trustees", the highest decision-making body of the Foundation, was released in December."[10]
3. A source says "Wikimedia’s reluctance to detail the restricted grant, from the Knight Foundation, was a factor in the departure of community-elected WMF board member James Heilman in December."[11]
4. A source says "Furthermore, this story resonates with eviction for "lack of confidence" in December, James Heilman's "board of trustees", the governing body of the Wikimedia Foundation. In a text published on Signpost, Wikipedia of the newspaper, he said he had repeatedly requested that these documents be made public, without success. An insistence which, he suggests, could be linked to his ouster."[12]
5. A source says "Late last year, Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees member James Heilman was dismissed from the board. Heilman has hinted that his internal quest to make the Knight Foundation document public led to his firing."[13]

James Heilman has spoke publicly about why his removal from the board and gave reasons why he was dismissed. The claim that it is somehow a BLP violation is dubious. It is not a violation of Heilman's privacy or work history record when it is documented in reliable sources. This is no privacy concerns, especially when Heilman spoke publicly about it. Heilman documented some of the events in text published in The Signpost. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-01-13/Op-ed. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-03/In_focus.

These are not my assertions, but statements backed up by reliable sources. No evidence to the contrary has been presented. It is directly related to the topic when the source indicates it is related. For example, a source stated: "Furthermore, this story resonates with eviction for "lack of confidence" in December, James Heilman's "board of trustees", the governing body of the Wikimedia Foundation. In a text published on Signpost, Wikipedia of the newspaper, he said he had repeatedly requested that these documents be made public, without success. An insistence which, he suggests, could be linked to his ouster."[14]

Heilman wanted the grant to become public and transparent without success. The Heilman content is germane to the topic, especially when the WMF is being questioned about transparency regarding the grant and KE project. The reliable sources have connected the Heilman content with the issue of transparency with the events that happened with the KE project. Since Heilman is a former "board of trustees" with the WMF his statement carries weight. There is no reason to wait for more press coverage regarding the Heilman content, especially when there are at least 5 sources discussing it. User:Jayen466 originally added the statement regarding Heilman. User:Nocturnalnow previously stated "This may belong elsewhere but not in the "development" section, imo."[15] Rather than take sides the text was rewritten to state Heilman's opinion per WP:NPOV. The same editor now maintains it is a "possible BPL violation".[16] The current wording is "Late 2015, James Heilman suggested that his internal inquiry to make the Knight Foundation grant public was a factor in his dismissal from the WMF's Board of Trustees." Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Note. Translation fixed. QuackGuru (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Note. Koebler 2016 (Vice) is being used to verify the claim that is being discussed here. Morgane 2016 (Le Monde) is being used to very another claim. There are different claims using different sources. QuackGuru (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Note. Guy Macon is asking Heilman (User:Doc James) about the text on his talk page. The discussion should continue because other editors may have a concern about a possible BLP violation. QuackGuru (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Having been a BLPN regular for years, I am confident in offering a clear view that the material in question is not a BLP violation. I've had no previous involvement with this issue, no COI, no off-wiki activity about it, and I have no opinion about whether the sentence should or should not be included -- but the notion that it is a BLP violation should have no influence on those discussions, because it isn't one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• This is not a WP:BLP violation.- MrX 12:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP definitely applies by definition - as the claim appears to give far more weight to a single issue than the living person gave to it directly and there are no "reliable sources" used for the claim as fact. Those who say simply "it is not a violation" are whistling in the wind - it is a claim which implies that one specific issue (KE) was the primary reason for the departure of Doc James from the board, where the sources indicate it was not a primary reason thereof. "Motherboard.vice.com" is not a reliable source for claims of fact relating to living persons, as far as I can tell. (Koebler counts, as best, as an opinion blogger, and not usable for claims of fact about a living person). The Tual cite does not make the assertion that the KE was the specific and primary reason for his boardectomy. Any use of either source should present and cite the opinions properly as opinions of those holding those opinions, and not make claims of fact based thereon. This is a common occurrence, alas, in biographical articles, which is the case at hand. Collect (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The sources are also pretty clear that while James was the only one forced to walk the plank, this is a much wider disagreement within WMF and elsewhere. I would be inclined to avoid even naming James here. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Just to note that I have no disagreement with that view. What bugged me was the attempt to use "BLP violation" as a trump card in the discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

And to note I still disagree with you -- any claim of fact about any living person which is so poorly sourced to opinion sources is, indeed, a "WP:BLP violation" - has been, is, and shall continue to be. Until you get that policy rewritten to allow opinion sources to be used as "fact." Collect (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I am still on the fence on this, but am leaning towards "BLP violation" (would we allow a claim of why anyone else was dismissed from a position based upon such sources? I think not), I would like to say that I absolutely do not believe that User:Nocturnalnow was "attempting to use 'BLP violation' as a trump card in the discussion". He clearly has a good-faith belief that this is a BLP violation -- a belief that is shared by several administrators who have commented in this thread. User:QuackGuru, on the other hand, appears to be on a spree of creating and expanding articles about internal Wikipedia disputes that he is involved in. He created The Signpost (Wikipedia) while in the middle of repeatedly citing Heilman's op-ed that was published in The Signpost. He is the major author of Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation) (he expanded it from a stub), where his editing history shows a strong tendency to make the article support the POV that he has expressed on Jimbo's talk page and elsewhere, and User:QuackGuru/Reform of Wikipedia (moved to talkspace from article space against QuackGuru's strong objections) is all about internal Wikipedia disputes that QuackGuru has been involved in. Then there is his block log[17] and his many trips to ANI[18] --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Update. Heilman commented about the text on his talk page. There is no longer any doubt that this is not a BLP violation. QuackGuru (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure Collect will find a reason to continue thinking it is... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

And the second-place WP:AGF award goes to... Nomoskedasticity! (Everyone else is tied for first.) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that talk page comment means much re: whether or not there is a BLP violation in the article. Also, even if, today, James does not mind being named in this way in this article, I'm not sure that anyone can know whether he will always feel that way. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, what Doc James said was acceptable to him on his talk page is significantly different from what QuackGuru want to say about him in the article. Are there are high-quality secondary sources supporting the claim? Or do we just have things like nonprofitquarterly.org saying "According to the Signpost..."? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The text in question says "Late 2015, James Heilman suggested that his internal inquiry to make the Knight Foundation grant public was a factor in his dismissal from the WMF's Board of Trustees."

Heilman's said I do believe that my "internal inquiry to make the Knight Foundation grant public was a factor in his dismissal from the WMF's Board of Trustees."[19] Claiming that it is "significantly different" from what is in the article is absurd. At least five sources discussed it. That makes it notable. But the issue here is if it is a BLP violation. Asserting it is a BLP violation is very different than showing it is a BLP violation. QuackGuru (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• The Le Monde source is very strong and supports the current wording above, and the weaker ones are in line with Le Monde. There is no issue here. And it doesn't matter what the subject thinks about it. Not ever (outside of courtesy and trying to resolve POV-pushing by subjects, within limits of what we can do) Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

  With respect, the Lemonde article's wording, according to Google Translate (see below), not only does not support QuackGuru's text, it actually contradicts it. Lemonde says "could be linked to his ouster" whereas QuackGuru says "was a factor". Lemonde even goes further by saying there was a different reason for James's ouster, i.e. "eviction for "lack of confidence"". In addition, if Collect is correct, that, for BLP violation purposes, the sourcing should identify KE as the "specific and primary reason" for James's dismissal, Lemonde actually does the opposite. Lemonde muddies the water substantially by referencing "lack of confidence" as the reason for dismissal. Jytdog's second point about a subject's opinion not ever mattering, I'm sure he is correct about that. Translation :directly below:

French: Qui plus est, cette histoire résonne avec l’éviction pour « défaut de confiance », en décembre, de James Heilman du « board of trustees », l’instance dirigeante de la fondation Wikimedia. Dans un texte publié sur le Signpost, le journal de Wikipedia, il affirme avoir demandé à plusieurs reprises à ce que ces documents soient rendus publics, sans succès. Une insistance qui, laisse-t-il entendre, pourrait être liée à son éviction. to

English:" Furthermore, this story resonates with eviction for "lack of confidence" in December, James Heilman's "board of trustees", the governing body of the Wikimedia Foundation. In a text published on Signpost, Wikipedia of the newspaper, he said he had repeatedly requested that these documents be made public, without success. An insistence which, he suggests, could be linked to his ouster." Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Nocturalnow you are bringing up all kinds of irrelevant stuff here, and passionately. Please tone it down. The article is not about James or his dismissal. It is about KE. The content said "for other reasons" and we don't have to enumerate all of them. Collect is a good egg but he has an idiosyncratic (and fierce) take on BLP. The background here is that the Board didn't give any reason for dismissing him; it just announced the dismissal. James said the conflict with the board arose over transparency over the KE (see here and here, each of which in my view are already reliable enough for the fact that he said that. In response board members have said herehere (the latter of which is the origin of "loss of trust" as far as I know) that he was dismissed b/c they found they couldn't work with him. We have a he said/she said. Any content in an article about the dismissal would need to deal with that messiness. The sources being rejected as not being of good enough quality do deal with that. Le monde deals with it. You are trying to read fine nuance via google translate, and this is not wise. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, I will take your advice and tone it down, thank you. You make very good points, but I still agree with what Guy says above. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

We are using one source for each statement. Koebler 2016 (Vice) is being used to verify the claim being discussed here. QuackGuru (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• There are numerous reasons why Google Translate should not be used in an academic context, especially when dealing with unrelated languages such as English and French. Some are listed here. You can find plenty more online. Hey, you could google them. ;)

Anyhow, QuackGuru's translation is correct. In the case of "défaut de confiance," the naughty Google truc-machin chose the less common meaning, confidence. If you don't speak the lingo, you may want to remember that in most constructs, "confiance" is synonymous with "trust." But don't take my word for it: Oxford Dictionary, anyone?

For those of you who don't like Le Monde, here's another high-quality source, Le Nouvel Observateur:

"James Heilman, médecin canadien et wikipédien, élu en juin 2015 par la communauté comme représentant au conseil d’administration de la fondation, en est chassé le 28 décembre (nombreux documents dans sa page d’utilisateur de Wikipédia).

La majorité des autres administrateurs auraient jugé qu’il y a incompréhension et manque de confiance mutuelle, mais le peu d’explication à ce limogeage ouvre un débat dans la communauté.

James Heilman indique ensuite avoir poussé le conseil à la transparence sur un projet de moteur de recherche et son financement."

(Free translation, just this once)

"James Heilman, the Canadian medical professional and wikipedian elected by the community in June 2015 as its representative to the Foundation's Board of Trustees, was shown the door on December 28 (see numerous documents on his Wikipedia user page).

Most of the other Board members allegedly stated that there had been compatibility issues and a mutual lack of trust, but the paucity of information released in the wake of this sacking led to a debate within the community.

James Heilman subsequently pointed out that he had pushed the Board toward transparency regarding a search engine project and its bankrolling."

You're welcome. And, no, this translation is not up for debate. I usually get paid handsomely for this kind of work and I've become quite good at it over the past 20 years.

Lastly, this entire discussion as well as several others seems somewhat WP:frivolous, with a whiff of Eau de Bromance Gone Wrong between Guy Macon and QuackGuru. It also looks mighty embarrassing from the outside, if you get my drift, Guy Macon. This is no time for sweeping issues under the rug, personal animosities be damned. Draco^E 01:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation Draco - I was reading it that way too. Jytdog (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Draco, I think the middle sentence beginning with "Most" clearly shows what the better sources are saying were the primary reasons for Heilman's dismissal; "compatibility issues and a mutual lack of trust", and those 2 reasons are not connecting Heilman to Knowledge Engine at all within the sources. The third sentence, therefore, is diminished to a non-primary speculative status and those words also require synthesis and outright imagination to morph into the words connecting Heilman's views on Knowledge Engine with his dismissal. It requires a lot of mental gymnastics to arrive at QuackGuru's wording from the sentences you translated. I could be wrong, but, I'd suggest reading those 2 sentences again. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Goodness, then just add that other board members contradicted that or called it "utter fucking bullshit". At any rate, there is no BLP violation here. This is an extremely well-publicised controversy by now. --Andreas JN466 04:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

If its so well publicized, there should he at least one high quality source which says "James Heilman suggested that his internal inquiry to make the Knight Foundation grant public was a factor in his dismissal from the WMF's Board of Trustees." Find that and the discussion is over. Until then, nobody has the right to get absolutist , imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

But that's what sources 4 and 5 listed at the top of this section, and the Nouvel Observateur, are saying. And if you feel they are not saying that exactly, then simply summarise what you think they are saying. Andreas JN466 13:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I think source 4 says James was dismissed (eviction) for "lack of confidence", source 5 says James "hinted" that his internal quest to make the Knight Foundation document public led to his firing, and Nouvel Observateur says that Board members pointed to "compatibility issues and a mutual lack of trust" and James "had pushed the Board toward transparency regarding a search engine project and its bankrolling." Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• can I please get clarification on the exact content currently being proposed? There is too much handwavy stuff here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I assume QuackGuru is proposing what he has already put into the article, i.e. "James Heilman, who was dismissed from the WMF's Board of Trustees in late 2015, suggested that his push for transparency about the Knight Foundation grant public(sic) was a factor in his dismissal – a suggestion Jimmy Wales rejected as "utter fucking bullshit"." I think the sentence in its entirety is naming names and their opinions within an article which has no use for their names or their opinions, thus, inclusion of the sentence in question is just some sort of coatracking and possibly a Blp violation for frivolous usage of their names and opinions.Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Nocturnalnow, it is time to close the entire discussion and move on IMO. It is clearly not a BLP violation. QuackGuru (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• QuackGuru, thank you for your patience. I have studied and thought about the various points made by yourself and other editors, including Collect, and I have come to the opinion that sometimes, as in this case, tangential connection, vagueness, and lack of importance to the article in question(e.g.Knowledge Engine) regarding a typically very personal matter, i.e., being fired, in combination, causes there to be a BLP violation where there would normally be no such violation ( in accordance with our editing parameters).

I realize this is quite esoteric reasoning but I think it is reasonable reasoning. One analogy I would offer is the Fruit of the poisonous tree, whereby evidence ( in this case "content" re: dismissal) is disallowed because of a combination of seemingly unrelated characteristics of the entity (in this case vagueness, minimum if any notability and tangential connection). The vagueness and inferiority ("hinted","suggested""one factor") is such, that by including it we cross the BLP violation line in relation to the subject's privacy, personal history, and in this case, even his Curriculum vitae. And as Jytdog says, it does not matter at all whether the subject is ok or not ok with the inclusion of this information within this or possibly a myriad of other articles that relate or may in the future relate to Knowledge Engine or Wikimedia or an almost unlimited array or future articles about various topics. The bottom line is, the content in dispute is so vague, of so little importance to this article and so personal, the combination of these 3 characteristics constitutes a BLP violation. Nocturnalnow (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the Heilman info should be in his BLP?

I did not think of looking at the Doc James BLP before now. Obviously, this disputed content about his dismissal should be/ belongs there if anywhere at all, I would think. His dismissal is discussed in the lede and body, but nothing/no connection with Knowledge Engine is mentioned, see:

LEDE:::: In June 2015, he was elected to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, a position which he held until he was removed on December 28, 2015

BODY:::In June 2015, Heilman was elected to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.[10] In December 2015, the Board removed Heilman from his position as a Trustee, a decision that generated controversy amongst members of the Wikipedia community.[11][22][23] A statement released by the board after Heilman was removed stated that he lacked the confidence of his fellow trustees. Heilman himself later said that he "was given the option of resigning [by the Board] over the last few weeks. As a community elected member I see my mandate as coming from the community which elected me and thus declined to do so. I saw such a move as letting down those who elected me.''

QuackGuru might want to put what he wants to put about James, over there, at least first, to see if it is accepted there as a non-Blp violation? Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Note. User:Jayen466 and User:Everymorning added information to the James Heilman's article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did too. Maybe we can just agree that is where it belongs and not with KE as it is too tangential for the KE article and as being tangential, fits into Collect's BLP violation definition possibly. So let's just leave it out of the KE article, please. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you serious? I never heard of the word "mused". QuackGuru (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• Wow, that explains a lot. With your vocabulary issues I suggest you stick with less demanding articles. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not a BLP violation. Other arguments might pertain as to whether to include it or exclude it, but "BLP violation" doesn't work in this context. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I see what you mean, Nomoskedasticity, if Collect agrees with you then I, who have less experience with BLP issues, will agree. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

My comments are intended to stand alone; I really don't care whether Collect agrees with me... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

) I understand. I just realized that I don't think any info "hinted at" belongs anywhere in an encyclopedia and in respect to such a personal matter "hinted at" info seems to me to be a Blp violation in a kind of gossipy way. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Even if the source said he speculated or alleged it still belongs in an online encyclopedia. QuackGuru (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Nocturnalnow, the wording "hinted" is too close to the source. I think "suggested" or "indicated" is better. They are synoyms.[20] There is a discussion on the talk page over a single word. QuackGuru (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Nocturnalnow wanted the information in the article and now claims it is not notable. What is going on here? QuackGuru (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the Lila Tretikov info should be in her BLP?

WMF Executive Director Tretikov resigned on February 25, 2016, as a result of the Wikimedia Foundation's controversial Knowledge Engine project.

References

Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

No; those 2 sources are not good enough. Nocturnalnow (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC) `

I am not going to add more sources at the end of a sentence.

There is no shortage of sources. See another new source: Mullin, Joe (February 29, 2016). "Wikimedia Foundation director resigns after uproar over "Knowledge Engine"". Ars Technica. Retrieved March 1, 2016. QuackGuru (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the Jimmy Wales info should be in his BLP?

In early 2016 Wikipedia editors perceived the WMF's Knowledge Engine project as a conflict of interest for Wales, whose business Wikia might benefit from having the WMF spend a lot of money on research in respect to search. Wikia attempted to develop a search engine but it was closed in 2009.

References

Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Walter Lee Williams

Earlier this month, an editor named User:Anthrousc (an almost certain WP:COI, because the subject of the article is a former anthropology professor at the University of Southern California) blanked almost this entire article with the edit summary "I deleted all the information on the sexual abuse of minors since it was inaccurate and misinformed (it was based on sensationalistic press news and not on the legal records produced for this case)" — he was instantly reverted by ClueBot the first time, but then reblanked the article again with the same edit summary and somehow didn't get reverted the second time. In the process he borked a ref tag, which left the article uncategorized because the categories were buried inside it — and all of this went completely undetected for 2.5 weeks until I found it languishing on uncats last night. In addition, the text and referencing they kept was entirely primary sourced "person who exists" PR bumf which didn't even really make a basic claim of notability per WP:NACADEMICS — so if there's any valid reason for his version to prevail over the existing one, then he should actually be deleted outright.

The claim of notability as a criminal is certainly substantive enough that we should keep the article if it's properly referenced and correct, but alleged or convicted criminals are a subject area where we do have to exercise extreme caution to make sure we're getting the article right, because of the extremely high potential for WP:BLP harm if we make mistakes or sensationalize. Accordingly, I wanted to ask if somebody could do a WP:BLP check on the article and its sourcing to determine whether what we have is right, or whether the blanking editor actually has a valid point about misrepresentation. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

There are many thousands of equally "notable" persons in the US - this article is, alas, entirely aimed at making people know how evil this person is - though the notability is entirely related to his possession of child pornography. Primary sources are used in the BLP - including an "inmate locator" which is decidedly improper IMO. In short - AfD is likely proper - he has no notability as a professor, to be sure, and the bit about being important in "Queer studies" is marginal, and listing him as notable on the claim that he was on the "FBI most wanted list" is clearly insufficient as it is the same as the criminal charge in its basis. I abhor the person in all likelihood, but that does not abrogate the policies of Wikipedia at all, and unless someone wishes to assert that appearing on the "FBI most wanted" list is intrinsically a claim of notability, I rather think he ought not have this BLP. Collect (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Article is currently fully protected - I ask any admin to nominate it at AfD per WP:BLP1E - that is, the person's appearance on the "most wanted list" is the only remote claim of notability and there is no sign of other normal notability standards being asserted at all. Collect (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Lee Williams. However, the person has oodles of notability as a professor - or, rather, as a historian and anthropologist, studying American Indians and Homosexuality. I'm gathering it up slowly (isn't it weird how history and anthropology books don't get as much front page coverage as convictions for sex crimes?), but the fastest thing that I could find is that his books were used as references and sources for way over a dozen unrelated Wikipedia articles, from History of Oklahoma to Non-penetrative sex. Yes, enough that he would have deserved an article even without the arrest; for one thing, he won a Stonewall Book Award, about 90% of the winners of which already have an article. Our article should be rewritten to focus on that, his works as a historian and anthropologist, though should, of course, still mention the arrest and conviction. (Yes, he was convicted and sentenced.) --GRuban (talk) 16:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Notable people with a condition section

So there is we have an article on a fairly new, fairly rare, unclearly-diagnosed condition. An advocate for awareness about that condition who is new to WP has proposed adding a "notable people" section.

The section would be

Notable people with misophonia

• Kelly Ripa - source is ABC News Link 20/20
• Kelly Osbourne - sources are Daily Mail and Misophonia blog

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC) (edited for clarity via redaction Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC))

My sense is

• Kelly RIpa yes - to save you time that is a 20/20 video segment where she talks about it and then others report on it. At first it is goofy/fluffy but then it gets real.
• Kelly Osbourne no. Daily Mail is bad, and blog picking up on that lends no strength, and i have found no other RS on it.

- Jytdog (talk) 05:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• No First of all, an organization dedicated to "raising awareness" about something which is not a "medically recognized condition" is not a good source for claims that a person has such a condition. It apparently means you have "misophonia" if any sound makes you "uncomfortable". That means the 99% of people who do not like the squeak of chalk on a blackboard technically have this "condition."

[21] has researchers at Newcastle University finding the problem with universally disliked sounds is "But all the noises have one thing in common: the sounds falls within the frequency range of 2,000 to 5,000 Hz, the same range that includes human screams. Our brains don’t like that much." in an article in the Journal of Neuroscience, but dealing with certain sounds a huge number of people can not abide. Amazingly enough, try to find studies that someone clicking a ball-point pen causes extreme reactions. Now fluff can be fun - but promoting an illness which is not an illness is not in accord with WP:MEDRS.

[22] states that only two studies total had been made on the subject. In short, it ranks somewhere about the same as "extreme broccoli aversion" (which is real) as a medical condition, alas. Are there people who go absolutely bonkers when they hear a person lisp? Yep. Is it a major medical condition? Nope. Especially since each subject examined has substantially different "triggering sounds." And where basically all the news articles - cite Wikipedia. Should Wikipedia promote it as a specific "medical condition" where one of the initial sources is Wikipedia? No. IMO, of course. Collect (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I edited the text above to make it a bit more clear. Collect if you do the typical search we do for MEDRS-compliant sources, there are 4 (yes, 3 by the same group) MEDRS sources on the condition (there are 3 more if you add SCOPUS-indexed sources); if you just do a pubmed search there are 30 papers. The most recent MEDRS source is here (happily the 1 of the 4 by an independent group), and is free, if you want to read it. I'm not questioning if it is a thing or not; I'm following the sources. They also asked for a third person to be listed, and I have no question about that, so I didn't bring it here. It is an NYU doctor and occasional NYT columnist Barron Lerner - source - Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

In short the source you give seems to strongly imply that it is on the "obsessive-compulsive spectrum" or is a "neuropsychiatric disorder". I suspect it should, per the source so nicely given just above, be a section within the appropriate articles unless and until it achieves widespread medical coverage as being a specific notable diagnosis. It has not reached that level yet, as I had earlier noted, and which the source given clearly confirms. Collect (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Since the literature hasn't defined it completely nor what kind it is, i would hesitate to do the OR to put it as a subsection in either of those articles. I think this article would survive an AfD since there are 7 MEDRS sources, so i haven't tried deleting it. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• Taken into account what Collect says on whether this is really a notable or appropriate topic: as long as the condition is not yet considered well-diagnosed, then while it seems appropriate to include notable people that claim they have it, these have to absolutely, 100%, be from self-identified statements, not second-hand information. Jytdog's analysis on the two cases above is spot on. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Neal Asbury

The article on Neal Asbury doesn't meet notoriety and is self-promotion. It was marked as needing immediate action in 2010. Requesting deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oakbranch (talk • contribs) 18:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Asbury seems to meet notoriety illustrate notability in reliable sources [23]. The article could use some trimming of promotional language but shouldn't be deleted. Meatsgains (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Be careful of saying someone has "notoriety"; it's actually a BLP problem itself, because notoriety is a bad thing. It means being notable for something bad ("notoriety" is the noun version of "notorious".) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@NatGertler: Thanks for pointing that out. I've stricken through my previous comment. Meatsgains (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Harjinder Singh Kukreja

Harjinder_Singh_Kukreja

- Not written from a neutral point of view - About someone relatively unknown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.198.8 (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I went through and removed several unsourced and promotional claims but the page needs another set of eyes to remove the remaining puffery. Meatsgains (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, as you were in the process of doing that I nominated it for speedy deletion. I think it is just self puffery, written by an editor identified as a sock. Shritwod (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the page should be removed. Meatsgains (talk) 05:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Lennart Poettering

Remembering that WP:BLP also applies to talk pages (although I don't necessarily find that a great decision), I come here to point out that this material could be considered objectionable from that point of view, aside from the fact that it's not about the article. I tried to remove it but it was reinstated with accusations and threats to report me.

I issued a final warning and I'd like to ask for the situation to be monitored. LjL (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I've watch listed the page and will revert if the IP attempts to reinstate the information. Meatsgains (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Parnelli Jones

In his bio it is stated that he first raced off-road in 1968 in the Stardust 7-11. That is wrong...Yes he did race in that race, but his first off-road race was the Mint 400 Off-Road Race, also staged in Las Vegas, NV in April. I was the creator of the Mint 400, and was the person who called Bill Stroppe to see if he could convince Parnelli to race. In the Mint 400 is where he blew up all his tires, etc. The Stardust 7-11 was a one-time race. Parnelli continued to race in the Mint 400 until he quit off-road entirely. In 2014 he was honored by the promoters of the Mint 400 as its Grand Marshall and received a specially produced gold watch by the race owner, Matt Martelli. Signed Norm Johnson Source: Me, Book "The History of Off-Road Racing 1976," and Wikipedia Mint 400. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:1200:1A19:8C5E:9B92:77A1:99B0 (talk) 00:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

todd hickman

Hello, I am asking you to delete defamatory information on the article concerning Todd Hickman. This is the second time in two months this person has put opinionated and defamatory information on the site. The person edited the article about Todd Hickman and said he was "terrible" as a football coach. That is opinion and defamatory. Also please remove the statement about him only having one winning season and the game getting cancelled for weather reasons. This is about my husband and he wants it deleted from the site. Is there a way to block this person from continuing to put defamatory information on wikipedia? Please take care of this immediately.

Sincerely,

Karie HickmanKrwhick (talk) 08:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism removed. The two IP addresses that added the information are on opposite sides of the United States, so it's probably different people. Also, please read WP:COI. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Jouseff

This article should be removed. It is clearly a CV and does not belong on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.39.106.215 (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I've take an axe to it and chopped out the spammy and unreferenced stuff.--ukexpat (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Timothy D Snyder

Timothy D. Snyder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a major criticism of Timothy Snyder made by Grover Furr. There should be a mention of Grover Furr's book "Blood Lies" on Timothy Snyder's page since the book alleges, and well-supports the idea, that Snyder's most famous work is filled with falsehoods. A couple of people have been making very politically charged comments in their reversions to edits on this page. Is there a way to lock the page so that a discussion can be had about including this major piece of critical scholarship on Snyder's webpage? 24.185.84.80 (talk) 14:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Furr's book is published by "red star press," and he's known for his pro-Stalin perspective. His position carries very little weight here, I don't think the material you want added is suitable for inclusion in the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Please note I have blocked 24.185.84.80 for 24 hours for violating the three revert rule on this article following a report at WP:AN3. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Natalie Gauci

I´d like to ask some BLP-savvy editors to take a look at this article. I think there are BLP-problems (and non-BLP-problems) with for example passages like " Natalie spent 8 months of her spiritual soul search in Berlin where she became addicted to Ketamine and became lost." and "In 2013 Natalie moved to the UK after being forced to face her darkest fears. She decided the drugs, the smoking and her addictions were no longer serving a purpose in her life and instantly turned her life around." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Wesbrook, Coy Wayne

Wesbrook, Coy Wayne shot 5 but did NOT kill 5 people. He is being executed for 3 deaths. The listing of 5 total killed is incorrectJoebrown1958 (talk) 15:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I modified the lead to better reflect the reference I added. Meatsgains (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Kyle Bass

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

This page has several questionable statements and sources that merit a second look based on their lack of verifiability and lack of NPOV which are both not in keeping with BLP standards.

For example, there is a statement about questionable ethics attributed to a Barron’s article that doesn’t corroborate that statement and the article is behind a paywall making verifying that error for non-subscribers exceeding difficult. The Japan section contains subjective analysis from a low-quality source (blog) which is not in keeping with BLP standards. There is also unattributed criticism of challenging drug patents that is not in line with BLP standards. A statement about CFAD and Celgene cites a WSJ article but the article does not contain information that supports the claim. Additionally, the biography states that Kyle Bass was tipped off to the sub-prime crisis and cites a CNBC interview from 2009 which is not verifiable nor accurate. The post ends with speculative reports about the performance of Hayman Capital that are also not accurate, verifiable or necessarily relevant to a BLP page.

This account is managed by Steele at Hayman Capital Management, L.P., which was founded by J. Kyle Bass in 2005. My goal is to serve as a resource in support of Wikipedia’s three core content policies. I will not be making edits, but rather participating in the community discussions. SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Contentious content at Nate Parker

Can I get some objective eyes on this content removal.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I think in general it was a good edit but it went a bit too far. I would favor the following content:

Parker was accused of rape while a sophomore at Pennsylvania State University in 1999 Parker was cleared of those charges in 2001.

I don't think any further details about un-corroborated allegations to be useful for the reader or fair to the subject of the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Stacey Dash

Recently, on the page for Stacey Dash, the birth date was changed from 1967 to 1966, based on posts from AllMovie and Film Reference. But, Film Reference is not considered a reliable source, and AllMovie biographies are user updated, so I would also say that is not reliable. Since the official twitter for Dash says born in 1967, I think the article should say that too. (I also posted on the talk page, but here would be nice for some second opinion/more visible.) Beerest 2 Talk page 00:55, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Marco Rubio

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

In February 2013, there was discussion at this board about the grandfather of this 2016 presidential candidate. The discussion centered on the question of whether the sourcing was strong enough to allow User:MastCell to write in the BLP that the grandfather had committed a crime by remaining in the U.S. illegally.[24] The discussion did not involve whether the matter was given undue weight in the grandson's BLP, or whether it violated the letter or spirit of the BLP policy which states: "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association".

In June 2015, I came across this material in the grandson's BLP and removed it. Today, MastCell inserted the following material into the grandson's BLP (citations omitted):

“ Rubio's maternal grandfather, Pedro Victor Garcia, initially immigrated legally to the U.S. in 1956, but returned to Cuba to find work in 1959. When he returned to the U.S. in 1962 without a visa, he was detained as an undocumented immigrant, and an immigration judge ordered him deported. The deportation order was not enforced, and Rubio's grandfather remained in the US illegally and re-applied for permanent resident status in 1966, following passage of the Cuban Adjustment Act, at which point his residency was approved. In 2012, The Associated Press concluded that Garcia might have been living in the U.S. illegally for four years, from 1962 to 1966. ”

I don't dispute that the material is reliably sourced, but I would like others to weigh in about whether it's undue weight, and whether it's guilt by association.

It seems a lot like the relentless efforts that occurred in 2008 to insert into the Mitt Romney article loads of detail about polygamous activities by Romney's great-grandparents, which happily was removed as that article approached featured status. I have no special affinity for Rubio; I've already voted in the 2016 primaries and voted for someone else. But I think basic fairness and BLP policy bars this kind of thing. MastCell said at the BLP talk page: "Given the central role that immigration policy has played in Rubio's career, I don't think even you believe that his grandfather's illegal status is truly irrelevant here." This is an obvious attempt to portray Rubio as somehow responsible for actions of a grandfather, just like claims about polygamy among Romney's ancestors was intended to somehow undermine his stance on marriage by pretending that he was responsible for what his great-grandparents did.

Make no mistake, this is guilt by association; it happens in China all the time. See Beitare, Rachel. "Guilty by Association", Foreign Policy (May 17, 2011): "The unlikely object of the Chinese state’s attention in this instance is Liu Xia, a painter, poet, and photographer — and the wife of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo. Guilty by association, she has been under house arrest, with almost no contact with the outside world, since November 2010, when her husband’s award was announced." Just as Liu Xia is held responsible for the actions of her husband, we are now insinuating that Marco Rubio and/or his policies should be judged based on what his grandfather did. A similar issue came up in the Chris Christie BLP, but I endorsed it because Chris Christie actually commented himself about it: "The brother of Christie's uncle (his aunt's second husband), Tino Fiumara, was an organized crime figure; according to Christie, the FBI presumably knew that when they conducted his background check. Later, Christie recused himself from the case and commented about what he had learned growing up with such a relative: 'It just told me that you make bad decisions in life and you wind up paying a price.'" In contrast, there is no indication AFAIK that these actions by Rubio's grandfather had any effect on him, or that he ever discussed it publicly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:DUE weight would seem to necessitate including this content. Senator Rubio considers his his grandfather worthy of mention in the context of his own life, and views him as at least a minor political influence. [25] [26] [27] [28] "Rubio often talks about drawing inspiration from long talks on the porch with his maternal “abuelo,” or grandfather, Pedro Victor Garcia. He has been less likely to discuss Garcia’s immigration troubles."

His grandfather did not commit a major crime, so I don't buy the guilt by association argument. I also don't see many parallels with Mitt Romney's biography, or China. We are not "insinuating that Marco Rubio and/or his policies should be judged based on what his grandfather did." Our sources may be hinting at that. We are merely including biographical content in the very neutral context of the subject's early life.- MrX 04:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Liu Xiaobo committed wrongdoing but it's still properly characterized as guilt by association. Anyway, do we have any indication that the subject (Rubio) even knew about this during his early life? And instead of hints, I would like to know from a reliable source how this ever affected Rubio. Without that it just smacks of innuendo ("Rubio's a hypocrite to seek border enforcement because his own grandfather was an illegal alien") or accusation ("Rubio doesn't really care about border enforcement given his own family history").Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I gave a direct quote from the Washington Post that makes it clear the grandpa had at least some influence on young Rubio. That, and the fact that this biographical information is covered in numerous sources, means that it is relevant for his bio. I don't agree that this portrays Senator Rubio as a hypocrite. It might if we placed it adjacent to content related to his immigration policy.- MrX 12:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• This is a very well-documented item that numerous reliable sources present as important context in Rubio's biography. Keep in mind, in terms of WP:WEIGHT, that we're talking about a minor mention—3 or 4 sentences in the middle of a long biography—not about any sort of extensive coverage. This issue was litigated on this noticeboard back in 2013, with the conclusion that the material is appropriate for inclusion, and the only thing that's changed since then is that even more reliable sources are available. (Well, the other thing that's changed is that Rubio is a Presidential candidate, which might explain why we're back here).

  Anythingyouwant is seeking to forbid any mention of a well-documented fact, described by numerous reliable sources as a meaningful part of Rubio's biography. Let's acknowledge that his position is extreme, and fundamentally at odds with WP:WEIGHT. His position boils down to the idea that readers need to be protected from these facts, no matter what reliable sources say. That sort of extreme position needs to be justified by something more than confused ramblings about Chinese dissidents and polygamy in the Romney family. MastCell ^Talk 05:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

  • The 2012 edition of the book titled The Rise of Marco Rubio is 307 pages long, and yet it covers only a very small fraction of the facts and factoids that have been reliably published about the BLP subject. There is no alternative but for us to be selective. All I'm asking here is that someone show me a reliable source explaining how this particular factoid may have affected Rubio. That seems like a very reasonable filter to screen out mere guilt by association and trivia. Anyway, extremism in defense of Wikipedia is no vice....or something.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
    • If you take a look at Abraham Lincoln, our biography of the first Republican to hold the office that Rubio now seeks, you will find discussion of ancestors going back over 150 years before he was born. His grandfather of the same name was killed by Indians when his father Thomas was a young child who witnessed the bloodshed. Such things are important formative biographical facts which should be included, considering due weight and how reliable biographical sources discuss them in context. We should summarize such coverage, avoiding original research. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
      • The Lincoln BDP is fine, Cullen. Lincoln's father was orphaned at age six, which is a major biographical fact, and it involved no guilt — or guilt by association —within the Lincoln family. I don't think it's analogous to using criminal behavior of Rubio's grandfather to vaguely imply something about Rubio's "immigration policy" (MastCell's words). I've done my duty here by bringing what I thought (and still think) is a BLP violation to this board, and will have nothing more to say about it, except to thank MastCell for keeping this crud out of the BLP for the primary season up to this point.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
        • Of course, "vaguely implying" is a vague assertion that requires a deeper explanation. But if someone proposes to add language stating an overt connection between grandpa's immigration status half a century ago, and Rubios's stance today (whatever that is), then they should cite indisputably reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
          • There are, of course, many such sources; see ABC News, NPR, Politico, the New Yorker, etc. That said, it takes a federal case to even mention these sorts of well-sourced, relevant facts in the current editing environment, so I'm not pushing that we follow reliable sources in linking Rubio's family history and his political stance on immigration. I don't want Anythingyouwant's head to explode. MastCell ^Talk 19:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm (rather weakly) inclined to let this information on Rubio's grandfather stand. Something that happened years before Rubio was born and did not effect the immigration status of his parents is not exactly compelling copy. On the other hand Rubio has made much of his Cuban roots and immigration is major presidential campaign issue. The word "illegally" after "remained" could be dropped as trying to lead the reader. It is fairly obvious that the US government at that time honored the judge's decision more in the breach than in the observance. Self-deportation?? Motsebboh (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Sort of, I guess. As one of the many sources describes, in the 1960s deported individuals were not forcibly removed from the country, but rather "were told to leave the country and were expected to do so". MastCell ^Talk 19:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I've already conceded that the information should stay. However, I wonder how many Cuban natives who wanted to stay in the States have ever "self deported" back to Cuba because a judge told them to. Motsebboh (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ashley Olsen

Ashley Olsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article Ashley Olsen has a claim with ADHD, which is poorly sourced. In the source ADHD is only mentioned by passing, also there is no verifiability for the claim in the article that Olsen takes "Ritalin ever since she was a child" in the source. I don't consider the source (Gala women/lifestyle magazine) a reliable source for these claims made in the article. WP:BLPGOSSIP
I tried twice to remove the material accordingly to WP:BLP but my edits were Undid without any reason given, and I don't want to start an edit-war, thus I'm reporting the problem here. --212.95.7.48 (talk) 07:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I have removed it again with an edit summary pointing to this noticeboard, however if there is a native French speaker available who wants to take a look at gala.fr, my limited understanding of the language indicates it is not a suitable or compliant source for a statement about a living person's medical history. Even should it be considered reliable for that sort of gossip, UNDUE applies - the amount of people in the US who are prescribed ritalin is well known for being 'large'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Which has been reverted by MightyDinoPower15, an editor who indicates they have a COI regarding the subject. I have notified them of the discussion here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Bring Chrome Home

The article Bring Chrome Home is tagged for speedy deletion and should be, as it basically is a WP:CFORK from DAP Racing and contains probable BLP violations involving the current and previous owners of California Chrome. It's basically an article about a Facebook group of folks who post an odd mix of anti-"foreigner" sentiment, an animal rights tone, total ignorance of horse racing, and a lot of unfounded accusations about the majority owner of California Chrome. The article repeats the same accusations. Pretty strong BLP violations. Montanabw^(talk) 07:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Now at AfD. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Francine Shapiro

• Francine Shapiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page on Dr. Francine Shapiro is regularly edited by uninformed people with the agenda of discrediting Dr. Shapiro and EMDR. Dr. Shapiro is the creator of EMDR therapy, and EMDR therapy is considered a first-line treatment for trauma by organizations such as ISTSS (International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies), the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the Department of Veteran Affairs, the Department of Defense, the Departments of Health in Northern Ireland, UK, Israel, the Netherlands, France, and other countries and organizations. There are 35 randomized controlled (and 20 nonrandomized) studies that have been conducted on EMDR therapy in the treatment of trauma to date. A randomized controlled study is the gold standard for evidence-based therapy, and for any research. And more excellent research now on the role of eye movements, mechanism of action, and other Randomized Controlled Studies, not only on trauma and PTSD, but also on the use of EMDR therapy with generalized anxiety disorder, treatment of distressful experiences that fail to meet the criteria for PTSD, dental phobia, depression, body dysmorphic disorder, chronic phantom limb pain, panic disorder with agoraphobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and peer verbal abuse.

The World Health Organization published Guidelines for the management of conditions that are specifically related to stress: Trauma-focused CBT and EMDR are the only therapies recommended for children, adolescents and adults with PTSD. "Like CBT with a trauma focus, EMDR therapy aims to reduce subjective distress and strengthen adaptive cognitions related to the traumatic event. Unlike CBT with a trauma focus, EMDR does not involve (a) detailed descriptions of the event, (b) direct challenging of beliefs, (c) extended exposure, or (d) homework." (Geneva, WHO, 2013) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpattijane (talk • contribs)

For some reason you seem to have deleted the previous contents of the talk page and replaced them with a poorly formatted copy of the main article. I don't know what you were trying to achieve, but I have reverted this. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Wow, there's not a single third-party source with any tendency to establish notability in the article, despite all the footnotes referencing Shapiro's own books and website (even some of those are dead links). See the reliable sources policy. The awards section is totally unreferenced. I think this biography of a living person should be prodded. I'll do it myself if the sourcing isn't improved in a few days. Please sign your posts on discussion pages, User:Drpattijane. Bishonen | talk 15:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC).

I think she's notable, there are some legit sources out there. The article def. needs cleaning up though - and someone with MEDRS expertise should probably look it over. Maybe Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing too. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Saheed Balogun

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saheed_Balogun His name is Saidi not Saheed' - This should be corrected — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabioerdters (talk • contribs) 15:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Nicola Barker

The sentences "As a child... sleep disorder", although quoted accurately from the unverified source interview, create an exaggerated impression of physiological disorder when removed from their surrounding context which has caused distress to the subject's family. She would appreciate it if they could be deleted. (Correction submitted on Nicola Barker's behalf by her partner, Ben Thompson) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.112.132 (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I have removed it for now, because as presented it is trivia. This is not to say that it could not be legitimately readded were it to be stated in the context of things that shaped the content and style of her work (as it is in the source). --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Isaiah Richardson Jr.

Would someone have a look at Isaiah Richardson Jr. where the (apparent) subject has said on the talk page "This entire page is based on a false article written by an ignorant racist who assumed that a black man playing any other type of music beyomd hip hop or gospel is some type of con artist. I will not allow this false article ruining my career to be on wikipedia. Unacceptable Mambojazz1 (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)". --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I had this on my watchlist from a previous ANI post (I think it was ANI). I honestly cannot find anything problematic about the current article. The NYTimes piece is basically everything said in the stub article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)