Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once

On October 13 a bot put 109 BLP articles into category "Climate Change Deniers" due to a CFD discussion. Number of editors participating: 10. Number of notices on the BLP talk pages: zero. Number of reliable sources cited to support the changes: zero. I claim that WP:BLPN is the appropriate discussion venue for such a large set of BLP changes, and that labelling people "deniers" is not appropriate without a strong consensus of subject-specific sources plus a strong consensus of editors who have actually seen the BLPs and are aware of previous discussions on the BLPs' talk pages and are aware of WP:AE. The articles are: Khabibullo Abdussamatov Stuart Agnew Syun-Ichi Akasofu Claude Allègre J. Scott Armstrong Michele Bachmann Sallie Baliunas Timothy Ball Robert Balling Joseph Bast Joe Bastardi Godfrey Bloom Joe Barton David Bellamy Maxime Bernier Marsha Blackburn Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen Christopher Booker Barry Brill Paul Broun Douglas Carswell Robert M. Carter John Christy Petr Chylek Ian Clark (geologist) John Coleman (news weathercaster) Piers Corbyn Ann Coulter Vincent Courtillot Ken Cuccinelli Judith Curry Edward E. David Jr. James Delingpole Martin Durkin (television director) Myron Ebell Nigel Farage Chris de Freitas David Deming David Douglass Don Easterbrook David Evans (mathematician and engineer) Ivar Giaever Steven Goddard Vincent R. Gray William M. Gray William Happer John Hawkins (columnist) Rodney Hide Ole Humlum David Icke Craig D. Idso Keith E. Idso Sherwood B. Idso Jim Inhofe Wibjörn Karlén Michael Kelly (physicist) Steve King William Kininmonth (meteorologist) Václav Klaus Steven E. Koonin Lyndon LaRouche David Legates Lucia Liljegren Rush Limbaugh Richard Lindzen Scott Lively Craig Loehle Anthony Lupo Bob Lutz (businessman) Steve McIntyre Ross McKitrick Patrick Michaels Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley Andrew Montford Patrick Moore (environmentalist) Marc Morano Nils-Axel Mörner Tad Murty Joanne Nova Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) Vladimir Paar Sarah Palin Garth Paltridge Tim Patterson Melanie Phillips Ian Plimer Denis Rancourt Arthur B. Robinson Marco Rubio Burt Rutan Pat Sajak Murry Salby Nicola Scafetta Harrison Schmitt Tom Segalstad Nir Shaviv Fred Singer Willie Soon Roy Spencer (scientist) Bret Stephens Peter Stilbs Philip Stott Henrik Svensmark George H. Taylor Hendrik Tennekes Anastasios Tsonis Fritz Vahrenholt Jan Veizer Anthony Watts (blogger). I will place appropriate notices on the talk pages. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPCAT, I think it is a really bad idea to have a category called "Climate change deniers" into which we put living people. Many of the listed people have been described as climate change deniers, often by reliable sources, so there may be some justice to applying the term—but in that case, the justification and sourcing for the term needs to be described with appropriate attribution and nuance in the body of the relevant articles. Categories, by their nature, are devoid of nuance, and so I don't think this is an appropriate use of categorization. MastCell ^Talk 17:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree that a category based on a labeled term ("denier") for BLP is very very iffy. If we even should keep the category, it should be at something like "Climate change theory opponents" but that's even if we should keep the category. A list where we would be able to include inline sourcing where the individuals have self-stated opposition to climate change would be at least reasonable to avoid a question of unsourced contentious claims. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This is analogous to religious views. If someone claims to be a climate change denier, he or she will be offended if this isn’t included provided a RS supports it. I edit Godfrey Bloom whose views are unequivocal. JRPG (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the concerns about this. Categories are blunt tools and the term "denier", while found in sources, is clearly pejorative and judgmental, regardless of the science and even if many both here and in the real world might think it fair. N-HH talk/edits 18:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

[EC] Fully agree with N-HH. Many extremely pejorative terms are found in sources that oppose those views. This phrase should only be used for BLPs of people who self-identify as "climate change denier". It is also imprecise, lumping together a blogger who thinks that the climate isn't changing and that all the scientists are liars with a respected climate scientist who agrees with the majority scientific view regarding climate change, including the most controversial part (the claim that all or nearly all climate change is the result of human activity) but doubts that proposed solutions that only involve a few countries and exclude China, India, etc. will solve the problem. Those are two completely different categories of people and should no be lumped together. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

As RevelationDirect said, maybe we could use a more neutral name like Category:People rejecting anthropogenic climate change. Prhartcom (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The parent category is named Category:Climate change skepticism and denial which is a little wordy but seems inclusive. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Masem that this probably shouldn't be a category (under any name). --JBL (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell's argument here; while I think they're clearly outside the scientific mainstream, the category name is needlessly pejorative. Prhartcom's suggestion strikes me as sensible. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Please also have the courtesy to alert each editor involved in the October discussion. — TPX 18:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I hope it's redundant since notifications have been made on all the talk pages now, but I hereby alert Youknowwhatimsayin 烏Γ Marcocapelle RevelationDirect Prhartcom Jerod Lycett Peterkingiron Nederlandse Leeuw Ssscienccce Cirt and the closing administrator Good Ol’factory. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This notification, at least for me, was in no way redundant; I had no way of knowing this discussion existed. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 19:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The articles were already in the category Climate change skeptics, which was renamed to deniers. Frankly, I think that the inclusion of most of those people in the original category was not controversial. What is controversial is the new category name, which sounds pejorative. I don't see this is a BLP issue. I didn't participate (or even know about) the original discussion. But to the extent that the new category name is pejorative, I'd certainly vote to revert to the skeptic category name. M.boli (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"Skeptics" is just as bad as "deniers", even when knowing how the term is normally used in that field. Out of context, it implies "their opinion is wrong", and unless they self-identify as that, that's a label that runs afoul of BLP even if if the claim is made by a reliable source. And that's where we need the strength of inline sourcing to justify when such a label can be used. Hence why any type of category to group these people seems wrong and it is much better to use a list here which can be sourced and better maintained to avoid BLP problems. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We represent how the reliable sources represent. And basically all the reliable sources that discuss the people who oppose the science that mankind is changing climate are "deniers" . That positions they hold and espouse may reflect badly upon them is not a BLP issue.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It has already been skeptics and before that it was deniers. We have been going back and forth between those two with many discussions along the way. If we're going to change it, change it to anything but either of those two. See other suggested names above. Prhartcom (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• It's worth pointing out that there's a difference between skeptic and denier. Skeptic accurately relates that someone doesn't believe it. Denier implies that climate change theories are proven and that they won't accept it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• People who deny climate change probably do not see the term "denier" as pejorative. See, e.g., Category:Holocaust deniers. The category definition may be incomplete if they only deny human-induced climate change. A new CFD can be started if needed to adjust either "denier" or the scope. But there is no BLP crisis requiring immediate response.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps some sort of climate category might be okay, but it's very difficult. If someone denies that the US can unilaterally take action to stop climate change, does that make them a "denier"? If they deny that climate change would be a totally bad thing, without any silver lining, does that make them a denier? If they acknowledge climate change but attribute 51% of it to non-human causes, are they a "denier"? Maybe a better category would be "people with a position on climate change".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Milowent -deniers are proud of their claims though wp:FLAT applies to those believing that CO2 doesn't cause it. JRPG (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Note that the current list includes Richard Lindzen, former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a lead author of Chapter 7, "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks," of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment Report on climate change, and Judith Curry, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Categorising those two as "climate change deniers" is madness. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• I favor either of the paths suggested by MastCell and Anythingyouwant: delete the category per WP:BLPCAT, or expand the category to Category:People with public views on climate change or similar. alanyst 19:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • having a public view on climate change is not notable or distinguishing. Denying the overwhelming scientific consensus about human induced climate change is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
    • What consensus exactly? Th UN report on climate change? Some kind of academic work? Something else? And to what extent does one have to 'deny' the 'overwhelming scientific consensus' to be included? What if one thinks the UN report on climate change is too optimistic? Are they a 'denier' too? Bonewah (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Mr. Doom, sure it's distinguishing. It distinguishes people who have a public position from those who don't.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
    • TRPoD, notability of a person's public views on climate change is up to the sources, and should not depend on our notion of how valid those views are. Whether a person has expressed public views on the subject is a rather objective question, much more suited to the binary nature of WP categorization than the nuances of the nature of those views. alanyst 19:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, categorizing people, living or dead, is the first step in creating a stereotype, which has been used for centuries as a divisive technique, from the Christians who were accused of burning Rome to the modern war on drugs, in essence to find support for a cause by finding someone to rally the masses against. Categories of things like athletic achievements, professions, or Nobel Prize winners are fine, but I personally am opposed to any categorization of things like race, religion or personal beliefs, because Wikipedia should not be participating in the stereotyping of individuals. Zaereth (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Although I disagree strongly with this category name, if someone is known largely as a critic/skeptic/doubter/denier/revisionist/debunker of climate change, I see nothing wrong with categorizing them as such. It makes it easier for readers to find other, similar articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure McCarthy didn't see anything wrong with his actions either, and that was the real problem with McCarthyism. This is no different. The real problem is not seeing how our actions affect others until it is too late. If Wikipedia existed in the 1950s, would you be in favor of a category of "Communist sympathizers?" The world is simply not as "black and white" as categorizations, which is exactly what makes them useful tools. It's much easier to rally people against a "perceived evil" than it is a spectrum of individuals. The Romans did it, as did the Nazis, the Americans, the English, and everyone else since the beginning of recorded history. George Bush Jr. had it handed in his lap, but like an idiot chose to take the fight to an enemy that the people were not even considering. As an encyclopedia, we're expected to do better than the politically-controlled news outlets we use as sources. Zaereth (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Godwin's law @Zaereth: If Wikipedia existed in the 1950s, the term would probably be "Fellow Travelers" rather than "Communist Sympathizers" but, under either name, it should be deleted per WP:OCASSOC. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I share the concern expressed above that the current name for the category is potentially misleading. Many public officials who are currently included in the category have indicated that they believe in climate change, but doubt the significance of human activity as a factor. I think it's misleading to say that they are "climate change deniers".CFredkin (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• And what are they "denying"? That change is occurring or that it's a man made problem and not a natural cycle? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• I've never been a fan of the word "denier" as a label; I prefer describing instead of labeling: "...advocates for climate change denial", "...who denies climate change", "...rejects the scientific consensus on...", etc. However, that's just a personal preference. Our sources are extremely clear on these articles that the subject denies climate change. Our sources are also very clear that the term "skeptic" is incorrect, and intentionally misleading. I'm frustrated that Pete is forum shopping; this discussion has been had many times, twice now at CfD, so Pete is trying somewhere new to get a different result. Nearly everything he's said in his first post here is untrue to some degree. If anyone wants the cat renamed, we can have that conversation (that's why WP:CfD exists), but please look into the sourcing and the BLPs first. Try Anthony Watts (blogger) for an example, and investigate the talk page and sources. As our sources there indicate clearly, "skeptic" is absolutely not the right word.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• CFD Notification Procedure "Number of notices on the BLP talk pages: zero." The current procedure for notifying other editors of category nominations is to tag the nomination category page which does two things: 1) it brings the page to the notice of anyone who is "watching" that page and 2) it places an alert on any WikiProject that is on the talk page. There are limitations to both: many long-term editors are watching so many pages they may miss the tag (that's why I always tag the category creator with a notice as an extra courtesy) and categories are much more likely to not have WikiProjects on the talk page.

When this category was nominated, the Skepticism and Environmental WikiProjects had tagged the corresponding talk page so they were automatically notified here and here. If the WikiProject Biography had tagged the category talk page, the alert would have shown up here.

As much as I disagree with the outcome of this particular nomination, as someone who routinely nominates other catgories, I don't think it's fair to claim the nomination was out of order when the process was followed. Rather I think it's worth emphasizing the importance of tagging category talk pages and watching the alerts pages. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with Jess that this is forum shopping. There was consensus for the new name; two days later, another CfD was opened and is largely being opposed. My participation in this collective discussion has been unintentionally contentious, and while I would prefer a more neutral name if possible, we can't ignore the sources. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 19:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if it's intentional forum shopping (the concerns here were BLP focused) but it is the wrong forum. (And, as an opponent of "denier" my viewpoint would benefit from moving it to this forum.)RevelationDirect (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Skip the whole category. "Denier" is obviously a BLP violation; as it implies that there is something wrong with scientists who hold a minority view; as opposed to seeing them as a natural part of a scientific discourse. That's basically an anti-science view as dissenting views and open debate are important in all science. But "climate change sceptics" is also misleading; since in most cases the issue for debate is human impact on climate change more than the existence of the change that are up for debate (they may also doubt the prognosis for further cliamate change and/or the negative effects of such changes). All in all, this is too complicated to get correct in a short category; the list category is called "Scientists opposed to the mainstream view on climate change" or something similar. Iselilja (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• There are more than two options: doubters, critics, or "skeptics and deniers" would all be a middle ground. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Forum I strongly agree with the sensitivity shown in this conversation toward categorizing people as "deniers" when they would likely reject that label and think we should find a middle ground between skeptics and deniers. At the same time, the frequent viewpoint in the CFD nominations that this group of people is objectively wrong (they are) so we should apply this unwanted label seemed inappropriate to me. Nonetheless, this is the wrong forum.

Category nominations need to occur in the CFD pages where they are centrally located. As much trouble as interested editors here had finding the official category discussion, it would be even more unlikely for editors to find an unofficial category discussion on this page. There is an open nomination to reverse the name back to to skeptics here and that is the correct forum for input (pro/con or other). RevelationDirect (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Reconsider change Many of the "deniers" do not deny the existence of climate change, but only challenge the cause. The previous label, "skeptic", captured this, while calling this group "deniers" does not. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

That was my reason for supporting the name change: edit: I had a similar but different reason: Helps more clearly distinguish between skeptics and those who think change is beneficial. People in the latter group should not be in the category of course Ssscienccce (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC) edit: 20:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Wrong forum here. CFD is the right forum for these discussions, see link offered by RevelationDirect below. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Those who hold a position here because of what they "know to be the truth" are precisely analogous to those who favour or oppose any "truth" in the first place. Rather, we should divorce this from what we "know" or "believe" or "believe we know" and stick strictly to the precept that people should not be categorized for their beliefs except on the basis of categories they place themselves in by stating their own self-categorization.

Else we are as bad as any who have labeled folks on the basis of beliefs as "heretics" or "witches" or any other category susceptible of "guilt by association" tactics. I, for one, have always opposed "guilt by association" arguments on Wikipedia and in real life, and if I be the only one left in the world holding that personal belief, if I be the only one in the world in my self-identification in the category of "do not classify people because they differ from you in religion or any other belief at all" then I proudly assert my position in that category. Collect (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy delete category Since this is a BLP issue and WP:BLPCAT disfavors this sort of "known sinners" category for living people, the category should be deleted immediately pending some consensus on whether any category name change would pass muster.--agr (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Note The CfR was not properly noted on the article pages affected at all. The discussion had far fewer participants than the current discussion. Further such comments as

"But climate change deniers are not engaging in scientific skepticism, but rather political rhetoric and ideology"' ,

" I'm saying this for NPOV, even though I personally agree they should be ridiculed.",

"Valid science is not a "Point of view." It isn't controversial among anyone with any scholarship in the subject matter. We don't have to pretend there is a real controversy because there are a small number of fanatics out there who cry "controversy." We don't treat the flat-Earthers that way either"

appear on their face to say that the change was designed to make a statement in Wikipedia's voice about everyone in the category whether or not we can provide reliable sources that the persons affected are 'deniers' . As such, the "rename" was seeking to make a point which could not be properly made about each living person affected, thus should be considered improper from the start.

In fact, the reasons explicitly given for the rename in the discussion before were and remain violative of WP:BLP, violative ofWP:RS, violative of WP:NPOV and of common decency about categorization of living persons. Wikipedia should never be used as a weapon to show how wrong anyone is, how evil they are, or how much they oppose truth - our task is to make an encyclopedia which will pass the "laugh test" in another century. Collect (talk) 08:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Correct Procedure @Collect: I certainly agree that the current category name is inappropriate and was one of the few editors to oppose the original nomination. Proceduraly, the CfR was fine though and the appropriate tag can be seen here. The good news, is that there is an open nomination to reverse the use of "deniers". RevelationDirect (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I would note that there were actually only a few supporters of the use of "deniers" (some of whom sought the name of a category as a means of publically shaming those placed in that category for the express purpose of "ridicule." IMHO, those !votes were a red flag to anyone closing the discussion that there were major problems with use of any category anywhere on Wikipedia for such a purpose. Collect (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Our article Climate change denial states that "Climate change skepticism and climate change denial form an overlapping range of views, and generally have the same characteristics; both reject to a greater or lesser extent current scientific opinion on climate change." Perhaps we could retitle the category to Category:Climate change deniers and skeptics to cover that entire spectrum? By the way, we have an article, List of climate change deniers, which is actually called List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. But maybe we could also start an article called List of climate change deniers and skeptics, which would encompass non-scientists too, and would, like List of atheists in music, require a direct quote (listed in the footnote) for each person. From that list article we could accurately tell who belonged in the Category. Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Softlavender, With respect, I feel that this would be a poor solution. There is a reasonable likelihood for readers to assume the worst of members in a combined category. And there is not necessarily a consensus above that climate change skeptics is any better as a category. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • CORRECTION, Softlavender seems to claim a 1:1 relationship between proposed entries on "List (or category) of climate change deniers" and [[List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. This is not correct. There are a lot of proposed entries on some sort of contentious "List (or category) of climate change deniers" who are not scientists within the listing criteria defined in the lead of that article. Generally I agree with Masem and Mastcell; a cat implies wikivoice and a more NPOV way to use this label, if at all, is with inline attribution that so-and-so says so-and-so is a denier. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Climate change deniers The overwhelming scientific evidence supports the theory of climate change. Sceptic instead of denier is transparent POV-pushing. How long until right-wing POV pushers suggest renaming the Holocaust deniers category to Holocaust sceptics? Also, climate change deniers matches the article Climate change denial. Finally, this is blatant WP:FORUMSHOPPING. This discussion should be closed as an abuse of process AusLondonder (talk) 09:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

AusLondonder put these additional 26 BLPs in the category "Climate Change Deniers": Cory Bernardi Tracy Byrnes Ben Carson George Christensen (politician) Derek Clark Ted Cruz Bob Day Steve Fielding Bernie Finn Nathan Gill Nick Griffin Roger Helmer Dennis Jensen Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) Alan Keyes Nigel Lawson Jean-Marie Le Pen Peter Lilley Ian Macdonald (Australian politician) John Madigan (Australian politician) Deroy Murdock Paul Nuttall Benny Peiser Peter Phelps (politician) Chris Smith (broadcaster) Roger Wicker Brian Wilshire. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

And your point is, User:Peter Gulutzan? AusLondonder (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I said in my initial post what my claim is. You decided to intervene, and your edits have similarities, so I showed them. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delete I support User:MastCell and others here that per WP:BLPCAT it is a really bad idea to have a category called "Climate change deniers" into which we put living people. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not a deletion discussion. AusLondonder (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary. This is the BLP Noticeboard and our WP:BLP policy clearly states "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) 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." A bot insertion of a "sinners" category on over a hundred bios of living persons cannot possibly be verified as properly sourced so this category should be deleted immediately.--agr (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• I think there is a scientific consensus that the quickest and most effective way to stop exacerbating climate change would be to rapidly switch over to nuclear power. Can we have a category for people who deny that? I would support such a category if we wish to have categories like "climate change denier" that are designed to give BLP subjects a poor reputation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per Mastcell and many others. (If this turns out to be the wrong venue to argue for deletion interpret my position and being in favor of removing every entry from the cat. If some actually belong, add them following a discussion. Maybe there are some, but most in the cat do not belong.) --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete All. Obvious attempt to demonize people with unpopular viewpoints is obvious. If any are legit, they can be re-added after the mass deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment This is not a deletion discussion. That takes place at WP:CFD. The astounding incompetence of some editors is deeply worrying. The cat corresponds to the article Climate change denial. The cat corresponds to independent, reliable sources. The matter should not have been brought here. The appropriate place is CFD. Could someone address why we can have these cats, if Climate change deniers is not allowed?
• Category:Holocaust deniers
• Category:Armenian Genocide deniers
• Category:Nanking Massacre deniers
• Category:Rwandan Genocide deniers
• Category:Japanese war crime deniers

Sadly, Wikipedia is turning its back on scientific source in favour of becoming a poor imitation of Conservapedia. Far-right politicians and their conspiracy theories are being given undue weight, fringe theories being promoted. AusLondonder (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hardly a NPOV approach: I don't see how Patrick Moore (environmentalist) could be considered a far-right anything, for one. Indeed, it seems like the whole point is to obfuscate any distinction among anyone who in any way or on any basis questions the political orthodoxy on this. Going through the scientists subcat I see people who merely question the certainty of the science, people who question the politics driving the scientific research, climatologists and meteorologists who don't agree with the science in their own field, and engineers and the like whose authority for expressing an opinion is at best doubtful. What it really looks like to me is a politically-motivated attempt to label them all as kooks. The comparison to long-settled matters of historical record is inapt. Mangoe (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Request for more admin input I'm asking -- not due to their authority but because I guess they've experienced the rules a bit more -- the four administrators who've been involved in this: MastCell, Masem, S Philbrick, agr. What do you think are the appropriate next steps so that we can come to a speedy resolution? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought I had the perfect solution. After watching the intense feelings expressed on this issue, not just here but carried out on the talk pages of articles such as Climate change denial, I did some thinking about the theory of categorization, helped by the article Categorization, and realized we were trying to solve the wrong problem. Roughly speaking, we were trying to debate the best term to be applied to a group of people, with some wanting to call the collection "deniers", others wanting "skeptics", and others suggesting alternatives. However, the problem isn't the identification of the correct word or phrase, the problem is that the collection isn't a proper category.

Categories ought to be "clearly defined, mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive". That is generally true of most categories but fails miserably when it comes to this set of people. Note that while one aspect of the discussion is the word choice, and equally important part of the discussion is which people belong in the category even given one of the several word choices. That ought to be a big red flag. Imagine, for a second, that some outside force simply degrees that the category name will be "deniers", or "skeptics", or "deniers and skeptics". With the debate be over? Only the narrow debate about the word and then the debate will be over whether person X belongs in the category.

This debate has carried over to the CfD discussion, but that discussion has a framing problem. It was presented as a discussion of whether Category:Climate change deniers should be renamed to Category:Climate change skeptics. While it is supposed to be a discussion, which allows all options and some have weighed in with a recommendation for removal, most of the participants are focused in on which of those two options is the best.

I thought I'd try cutting the Gordian knot and request that the category be deleted rather than argue over the right terminology. However, when I made this proposal here, it was procedurally closed, on the understandable argument that the discussion was already taking place. While understandable, I think it was flawed, as it missed the framing problem. It currently looks to me like some admin is going to have some god-awful challenge to close a discussion and choose one of the bad options. Once closed, I will try again to make the case that it ought to be deleted, but it should be nice if we could save the effort and delete it now. I think too many participants are entrenched in their own view, and see it as a tool to advance their position in the general global warming debate. Would be better off if we thought about it as a category not as a global warming tool and realize that it's not a proper category.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree on pretty much everything you say here. I've been trying to look at how similar issues have been treated in the past, and superficially there seems to be a lot of overlap with the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories. Is that right or am I missing something? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment (Non-Admin) @Sphilbrick: CfD discussions begin with a specific proposal (in this case rename) but the conversations often end with a different outcomes than the nomination. You'll see a lot of delete votes and alternative rename votes in that discussion. (If you haven't already, please do add your thoughts into that main CfD nomination.) In this case, I think the first third of the discussion was distracted not by the rename proposal but by procedural objections over reopening a recently closed discussion. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Jurisdiction Who ultimately owns enforcement of WP:BLPCAT: the BLP side or the cat side? @Peter Gulutzan: and I were having a side conversation on his talk page about this. There's been accusations of WP:FORUMSHOP here but I really think this is a valid question. For now, I've started putting notices (below) for open category discussion with WP:BLPCAT implications to encourage more participation. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

We didn't specifically discuss WP:BLPCAT on my talk page. I don't bother with WP:FORUMSHOP allegations because this isn't the proper forum. I thank Sphilbrick for replying; I realize that the other administrators may lack time. I'm thinking now that requesting a close could work. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Rename to Category:Climate change theory opponents or similar, per WP:NPOV. Yes, climate change is real, and yes, it's anthropogenic, and yes, it's a crisis and political action is desperately needed. But the current name of this category isn't helping any of that. -- The Anome (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

This is flawed, User:The Anome. Some issues do not require equal weight to all sides. Should Wikipedia take a neutral position on the Holocaust or whether the Earth is flat? AusLondonder (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not take a neutral position on climate change. Our article on Global warming reports what authoritative sources say on the topic without equivocation. In particular it says "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported in 2014 that scientists were more than 95% certain that global warming is being caused mostly by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other human (anthropogenic) activities." However we have strict policy WP:BLP on biographical information that requires any contentious information be well sourced. "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." As the arguments over the name for the disputed category make clear, positions on climate change can be highly nuanced. I looked at a couple of the articles to which the category was originally added by bot and found Andrew Montford who's is quoted as saying "I believe that CO2, other things being equal, will make the planet warmer. The six million dollar question is how much warmer. I'm less of a sceptic than people think. My gut feeling is still sceptical but I don't believe it's beyond the realms of possibility that the AGW hypothesis might be correct. It's more the case that we don't know and I haven't seen anything credible to persuade me there's a problem." Does that make him a denier? Some might think so other might not. But the connection does not rise to the level required by WP:BLP. Categories are particularly problematic because there is no mechanism for adding a source to a category designation within an article. So our policy discourages label categories for living persons. The category was removed from Montford's article a few days ago, but who is going to check all 133 entries in the category and its sub categories on a regular basis?--agr (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I intend to go to WP:ANRFC and ask "Closure by admin requested for WP:BLPN discussion 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once", on Thursday November 12, unless other editors say more time is needed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: My only hope that this would be closed in tandem with the CFD discussion. I don't think two dueling close results would be constructive. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I have placed the request at WP:ANRFC. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Cat per WP:BLP ("Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) 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.") Labeling people who think climate change is beneficial or who doubt that the US acting alone can reverse climate change while China and India increase CO2 production without limit as "climate change deniers" is a classic example of an unsourced negative claim in a BLP. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Cat There is no agreed upon way to categorize this, and the claim that all the people here have the same views is just plain false. Some of these people disagree with the notion of man-made climate change because they dislike the political goals of those who argue for it, others are convinced the evidence is against it, others are convinced it attributes too much influence to humans and their actions and not enough to other sources of change, others are clearly ambivalent on the issue but unwilling to declare as proven fact based on the current evidence. This is a mass grouping. The fact that the other deniers categories brought up all dealt with past events that some dispute occured as opposed to future events that some dispute will happen, or argue will happen for reasons other than those posited, and that even those who agree that the general principal applies have multiple models of what will happen, just shows this is an unworkable category. It needs to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep category: if, as has been repeatedly asserted, multiple reliable sources call certain people "climate change deniers", there is nothing in WP:BLP that prevents those claims to be reflected by a category, as long as the references are in the respective bodies (that's how categories are meant to work). LjL (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I can create a list of equally "reliable" sources that call people "anti-life", "anti-choice", "gun grabbers", "gun nuts", "freedom fighters", "terrorists", "traditional marriage defenders", "Homophobes", etc. etc. Just because a bunch of people use a biased term that most members of a group say does not accurately describe them, that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should not find a more NPOV category name. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a huge red flag for me about this cat or others like it, when it is being defined by reliable sources that are not the person in question. It basically allows for people to be slandered/libeled by WP by a term that could be taken by some as derogatory because an RS says so. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Cat per BLP. The only place we should be even be thinking of using the term is in articles whose subjects explicitly identify themselves as a "climate change denier", and even then, erecting a category on that basis implies the term has the same meaning in all cases, which it doesn't, given as said repeatedly above one might contest the vality of the data, but not the predictions, the predictions but not the data, the reality of the problem but not the efficacy of the proposed solutions, and so forth. μηδείς (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Obvious and egregious violation of WP:BLPCAT. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Aziz Sancar interview translation - talk

Biased interpretation of a particular interview of the Nobel Laurate Aziz Sancar in Turkish language used in his biography. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aziz_Sancar#Controversies_section . Its' flowing with opinions but not with clear definitions. Until a full; reliable English translation of the said interview is provided to be discussed upon; talk is bordering "libel" and "slander". WP:BLPSOURCES and importantly; whole interview was skimmed down to one single biased comment.Mulkhan (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The definitions are quite clear. There's at least five users ([1][2][3][4][5]) who agree with its current format, including those that happened to disagree from the beginning. If you'd like to discuss about who or what he was referring to, that can easily be managed. But that little tidbit of information is by no means biased especially considering that each and every word and its subsequent definitions was verified by numerous sources by native speakers such as myself and others. Please refer to the sources presented at the talk page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It used to say "English People" before my objection and now it says "the West" and on the talk page you claimed "... used against non-Muslim Western society. More importantly, this is the definition adopted by Wikitionary and Wikipedia itself." whereas neither wikipedia nor wiktionary says anything about "Western Society" You're adding definitions off of your head and claim those are "reliable". How can anyone rely on your interpretations if you keep adding personal ideas to descriptions? Thats why it's a dispute about "Sources". Definitely biased and no; biased definitions certainly can be pressed and supported by anyone. Before implying you're a native speaker; at least try to quote definitions without changing them. Mulkhan (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you really feel about that being an issue, you shouldn't advocate deleting an entire paragraph of perfectly sourced material. Instead, you can propose removing the word West or English. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It is you who saw it as an issue and changed it on your own. So the person in question addressed "English People" or "the West" ? Is this what you call "Perfectly Sourced Material" ? This is a living person's biography, not an high school essay. That's why the "sentence" (not paragraph as you're trying to exaggerate) is poorly sourced and should be looked into by neutral people Mulkhan (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed an unfortunate framing of the use of the word "gavur" to imply the worst possible framing. We must respect the spirit of biographies of living persons guidelines. It should not say "infidels" when it could have meant "foreigners". SageRad (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

SageRad He said "Allah'in gavuru" meaning God's (or Allah's) infidels or infidels of God specifically. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No; there's no source upon your preference of the meaning "infidel" when used with "Allah's" remark. "Allah's or God's" does not imply it's used in religious context. Please provide a non-personal souce. It's not what he meant. Mulkhan (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

However, the Wikipedia article on Giaour does seem to hold that it is a slur that is closely translated as "infidel" or at least is an offensive term. This is a difficult question. SageRad (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I proposed a word by word translation of the relevant paragraph of the interview in the talk; leaving Giaour as it is; in the context so people can see what he meant by looking up the word in wikipedia; without adding pointing to "infidel" specifically. Even the translation of to whom or what the term Giaur is debated; "English people", "the West" or "Western Society" are definitely not interchangeable. Instead of trying to skim it down to a debateable "one liner"; proffering the translation in it's entirety leaves no question of "misinterpretations".Mulkhan (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Debated by whom? It's not really debated. Five users have already agreed to its current definition of 'infidel', let alone entire articles (i.e. Gavur) and Wiktionary pages (i.e. Gavur). The sources provided by Yerevantsi on the TP are as strong as it can get, including the Turkish Linguistic Society. All of the sources that have been presented up till now have the same definition. Let us focus on what sources say and not rely on personal observations. For the sake of your argument, that would mean to present sources reflecting your view, and not just commentary about what you think this or that word means. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"Infidel" is one of the translations which does not need any debate; but you're yet to explan where does it say "Allah's Giaur" means specifically "Allah's infidel"; because it does not appear in TDK, the source you just gave; Turkish Linguistic Society in phrases made by the word Giaur. It's clear you're trying to avoid a word by word; direct translation where leaving Giaur as it is; because it doesn't fit a particular agenda. There's even debate in that sentence's object; is it "the West; English People or Western Society" which shows a poor (or misleading) understanding of the interview (or English language). I don't think you're neutral and unbiased so that's why the subject is here. A living person's biography can't contain poorly constructed and biased opinions; especially made by biased point of view. Mulkhan (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Until we have reliable sourcing about this as being a controversy, I thin is better left out of the article. It's a BLP and this feels like negative synthesis to me. I've read the talk page discussion as well and the English source. Need source to establish that it's true and significant, otherwise this is an editor's original research. SageRad (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Since it's an original research not sourced as a "controversy" by any reliable (or ANY) source; (which is admitted by the editor Étienne Dolet in the talk page : (Indeed, finding a source that calls it a controversy is important) I'll be removing it on the grounds of "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.", in addition to violation of the WP:NOR and should be immediate per : WP:BLPREMOVE and suggest complete removal of the debate in the talk page and protection of the section by an admin in case any vandalism may occur. " Mulkhan (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This isn't to say the debate over his ethnicity shouldn't been included. After all, it's among the first thing reporters ask about him. His reaction to it should also be noteworthy to that effect. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

*Nope; the arguements in the "controversies section" in the talk page was made without referencing a single reliable source. Since the interview was not perceived as being "controversial" in any reliable source; pushing it with arguements sourced with original research is just arguing for the sake of arguing. And since there's nothing controversial about the interview; adding it to the article is pointless. And WP:NOTABLENEWS is not a valid counter arguement since the interview was there for some time and assuming it'll gain "controversial" status should have no place in a BLP. If it becomes controversial in the future; it might be discussed again for inclusion; after assesing the compliance of WP:BLPSOURCES. Mulkhan (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No one is advocating the use of the word 'controversial'. However, it can be added per WP:NOTABLENEWS since the interview, along with the quote, has received wide coverage. A simple google search of the quote alone yields 600+ results. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP clearly stipulates: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Unless you come up with reliable sources; this "controversy" has no place in a BLP or it's talk page. EOD. Mulkhan (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Please help me to understand this dispute. I cannot read Turkish, but i have been reading translations of stories about Sancar's interview, and i can't make heads or tails of it. Would both of the main disputants in this conflict please describe, in brief and simple terms, what Sancar said, and why it is important or not, and what it really means? It would help me, as i am sure it would help others who may be observing this dialogue without full understanding. Thank you. SageRad (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

As he was born in Turkey; Turkish newspapers wrote that he said "BBC reporter asked me whether I am an Arab or half-Turkish (or Kurdish, depending on the Turkish source) ; I replied "I don't speak Arabic or Kurdish; I am Turkish" then a debate erupted in social media what ethnicity he is. Mardin province has Arab, Kurdish and Turkish residents; and Turkish media, esp. political ones, heavily used this in current political discussions.Mulkhan (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that user Mulkhan is blocked and there is discussion at their talk page here on which i have added my opinion of this very distasteful situation. SageRad (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Bhavna Limbachia

• Bhavna Limbachia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

[Bhavna Limbachia] this page has incorrect data on and could be harmful to the person that this page is about. Under Rule, Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced

The date on the page, [Bhavna Limbachia] is

is unsourced or poorly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robson6244 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the date and place of birth, since they are unsourced. —C.Fred (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Only source on that article is Imdb which, of course, is not a reliable source. Therefore I have placed a BLP Prod. Safiel (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Chimerism_in_criminal_evidence

Twice now, User:Wnt has chosen to bring up the name of a living person in connection with various odd political statements about procedures that he imagines could have been carried out in response to a question on chimerism that has nothing to do with the person he mentions. I suggest Wnt be admonished, and that the edits be revdeleted, as they have no relevance to the topic at hand and are based on unproven accusations not mentioned in that person's article at WP.

Problematic edits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=691242359&oldid=691241907

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FScience&type=revision&diff=691316855&oldid=691315280

Request on Wnt's userp[age that he not continue this behavior.

μηδείς (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32 and Guy Macon: Please note that the second diff represents only one of three in succession; I did add a source for the abortion story [6] right afterward. Wnt (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The second diff actually covers all three edits, including the source Wnt says he added. I'll assume out of good faith he simply didn't click on and read the link. μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with removal. Gratuitous, sexually degrading joke at the expense of a living person has no place anywhere, least of all in the context of a global encyclopedia. --Jayron32 02:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

1) The current content of a Wikipedia article is not supposed to be some kind of limit on what can be said about the topic elsewhere. For example, people are supposed to be able to propose additions to articles on their talk pages.

2) [The] abortion was the source of national commentary during the 1990s. I provided a reference about it in the second edit just to be clear about that, but to people in the U.S. it is well known.

3) The Refdesk is supposed to be a place where people can use hypothetical examples with real-world relevance to emphasize the impact of new technologies. I was not claiming to speak of things that had been done, but only of things that could be done. A technique to determine the paternity of the fetus retroactively from the mother's blood might have been of interest to some of the Republicans who so doggedly dogged the president for so long. In any case, it illustrates how the ability to find out a fetus' paternity could have far-reaching social effects.

Wnt (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• The ref desk question was about chimerism, and still Wnt insists on making it about a totally unrelated political whipping dog, whose name he had no need to mention here except as a provocation. I suggest the edits, including the excuse above, be rev deleted and the user given a block to show that this is not acceptable behavior. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Medeis: Perhaps you don't understand? The point is, women are chimeric for fetal cells much of the time after pregnancies.^[7] (It is less reliable after abortions, but can happen) And the question was about the forensic use of chimerism. It is necessary for people to understand the science, and necessary to understand how these procedures could be of public policy relevance. Wnt (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

And this required naming a particular individual -- why? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

To illustrate the issue in a way that a generic example wouldn't. To ban all what-if scenarios that involve any living person from the Refdesk would significantly damage the ability of people to discuss interesting questions. Wnt (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I have removed your reference to the BLP you have mentioned yet again, above, although Jayron and I find the edit improper, and Guy Macon questions it. The bottom line here is not that what if questions should be banned (even though the ref desk guidelines say we don't do predictions or debate). The question is why it is necessary to drag an innocent individual into a concocted story, which is purely OR, in order to make what seems like a political point. For example, would we name a person who had an article and who had been raped in the speculation that she might be the target for a future rape by some organization we think is misogynistic? μηδείς (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I am going to do more than question it. Mentioning that women are chimeric for fetal cells (properly cited) is fine. Mentioning the name of a person as a potenial example is a clear BLP violation, and the reason given ("To illustrate the issue in a way that a generic example wouldn't.") does not override our BLP policy. If Wnt re-inserts the BLP violation again he should be blocked for the BLP violation. The fact that the person named is not known to be chimeric and the fact that bringing up the incident involving the person named appears to be an attempt to influence the upcoming US presidential election makes the whole sordid mess a lot worse. μηδείς, good call bringing this here. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not pleased to see some people here creating such an obstruction, but I have regretfully posted a less-interesting discussion of the concept at the Refdesk. It amazes me that after seeing half the politicians and all the media of America go to such lengths and legal compulsion to humiliate this woman for so many years, after waiting with the whole country to see if a close vote for an unprecedented impeachment from office would be passed as a result of their personal connection, now it is supposed to be improper to mention her as a hypothetical example of a forensic possibility. Wnt (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

It going to almost always be improper to use living people as 'hypothetical' examples of anything that could be taken as negative. The BLP policy is clear on this. Do it again and you will likely be blocked. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Is there a point in my asking that the edits be revdeleted? If so, can someone here do it? If not, I'd like to know where I should be asking, or if I should just delete the diffs above. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thierry Morand

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

The English needs revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.120.229.205 (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The article was very poorly sourced and formatted. Stubified. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Calvin Cheng

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

This article has a bunch of issues with NPOV, balance and verifiabilty. There is an aggresive editor who undoes attempts to fix the article.

Watchlisted. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ismahil Akinade

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

The correct version of events has been changed. It can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ismahil_Akinade&direction=prev&oldid=689268199

All the information regarding his convictions are 100% accurate. Please amend accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.127.40 (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Whatchlisted. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Jaycen Joshua

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

Page reads like a resume, no citations to prove work, singular editor making all changes probably a COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quixoticzoomie (talk • contribs) 21:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Susan Bitter Smith

Susan Bitter Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There seems to be people adding and removing negative information from this article. Needless to say, I am concerned. --I dream of horses (My edits) @ 05:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Need a second opinion

Recently the article for Huccha Venkat was deleted several times, to the point where it was salted. It was eventually restored and moved to Draft:Huccha Venkat, but there's still somewhat of an issue here, predominantly from a BLP angle. The guy has been in a film that looks to be potentially notable and he was on Big Brother, so notability is likely established - I haven't taken a close look at this yet.

The main issue is that the guy is primarily known for being controversial. His latest thing is that he said some allegedly offensive stuff to another person on a panel discussion, which led to him being arrested. His lawyer is now claiming that he's mentally ill. Given that this is all due to controversy and there's allegations of mental instability, I want to make sure that this is 100% kosher before going forward. I'm fairly certain that if this was accepted right now, it'd probably go straight to AfD where the BLP issues could prove fatal if not discussed beforehand. I'm leaning towards this guy probably meriting an article since there is a lot of coverage (his film could probably be merged into his page, making notability easier to establish), but the possible BLP concerns are troubling.

I've posted at WP:INDIA about this since there will be some issue with finding sources since India-related sources won't come up in a basic Google search. I'd recommend using this search engine to find things. It's one that was made by the India WP specifically for use on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

He's trying to stir up controversy, but mentioning that stuff on here affects other BLPs all on the say-so of this person. This appears to be all too similar to Kamaal Rashid Khan but without that much coverage for the nonsense. However, we don't cover most of the nonsense in the KRK article. If this bio is notable, it should include only opinions of him, not the random ravings about other living persons. —SpacemanSpiff 12:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks fine to me - everything is attributed to whoever said or wrote it, and it's all relevant. The Times of India quotes should probably be compacted a little. Samsara 13:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This article has reference more than 20 news article. Huccha Venkat is a personality, where its for right or wrong or mixture of both. The article is relevant. It needs to be instated without further due and dragging to different forums. Please reinstate the article, ASAP. Rajannamysore (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Of possible interest

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary DeMoss (3rd nomination).

Comment there, if you will.

jps (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Karunasena Kodituwakku

COULD SOMEONE FIX THE TOP PART OF THE PROFILE FOR "KARUNASENA KODITUWAKKU"? WHEN I EDITED IT ALL GOT MIXED UP JUST THE TOP PART. THE BOTTOM AREA IS ALL UPTO DATE

THANKS

D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.42.255.219 (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Done (There was one square bracket missing from the birth place field). Eagleash (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Haxent

Lorenzo Giuliano, commonly known by his stage name Haxent, is an international music producer and Dj. Supported on BBC Radio 1 by Chuckie & many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Areyoureadyec (talk • contribs) 21:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Xavier Naidoo

Prejudicially negative, likely reputation-damaging characterizations re political views inserted into this short article here: Special:Diff/651182580 and here: Special:Diff/691706416   - IslandGyrl (talk) 06:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The material in question comes with sources that include Die Zeit. I'm not going to spend much time dredging up the German that I learned >20 years ago, but if the sources say what is being entered into our article then I doubt there's a problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The sources seem to support what's being said. My worry is whether German Huff Po is an RS (I have no idea if UK or US Huff Po is either) and a couple of the others (Heise.de and faz.net). It might be worth finding someone who knows more about German media to double check.Red Fiona (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Its reliable to the extent Huff Po is elsewhere. My German pretty much gives me the same as google translate does, which indicates its factually correct. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Die Zeit und Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (faz) are the highest tier German quality newspapers. Heise is a computer-oriented magazine publisher who branched out online early and has a good reputation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

BBC story on the event Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The BBC link gives a good summary, but reports on claims, not facts. I've removed the claims that are not directly supported by the other sources. This whole thing is somewhat overblown at the moment, and might easily drift into WP:UNDUE. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Max Blumenthal

Asking for more eyes at Max Blumenthal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which for more than a month has seen IP editors trying to add unsourced (or poorly sourced) information to the BLP. Today a sockpuppet of perma-blocked editor NoCal100 (talk · contribs) joined the fray. Thank you. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 21:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Jim Sterling

I've reverted this article to a version from 9 months ago due to the new content containing large amounts of negative or questionable material, which was mostly self-sourced or sourced to YouTube and other user contributed media. I'd appreciate any third party review. Prodego ^talk 23:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

you removed almost half of the content, and just almost a year's worth of revision, over that?

Jim Sterling has had a long-running feud with Indie Developer Digital Homicide for over a year. It has been discussed by external news sources, and has been sustained with frequent content between the two. At least three of his "Jimquisitions", produced weekly, have been on them in the last year, and his greenlight series has covered at least ten of their games. Further, there was an interview between the two lasting a full hour and forty minutes.

even putting aside the notability of the rivalry, is that one section worth reverting almost a year's worth of edits? really?--Kizzycocoa (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

So much for being done, the whining continues. Listen, what have I been telling you? They are correct, obviously. All your sources consisted of reddit comments, taken down tumblr blogs, tweets, and youtube videos. And the few websites you had sourced were community blogs or websites that weren't credible, per WP:VG/S. None of that belongs in an encyclopedia, so I encourage you to look through the Wikipedia policies to better understand what should, and should not be added to articles. A 'feud' between Jim and a non-noteworthy developer is not something you add to encyclopedic articles. WP:NOT, WP:BLP. You can benefit from reading those. 206.45.74.203 (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, at this point, I can't care less. It's clear that this site is bureaucratic to a ridiculous PC degree, and I certainly don't plan on even trying to improve the article any further.

Right now, I'm intent to point out the incredibly ridiculous actions of the admin. It's to the degree where I'm livid that they, as an admin, thinks this is an acceptable course of action.

In response to a section on Digital Homicide, which has had a large coverage from Jim and other press outside of games websites (who tend to focus on games rather than indie disputes, hence the very understandable lack of sources), this administrator decided the best course of action would be to erase 9 months of edits.

I was one of the leading admins on The Minecraft Wiki - one of the most popular gaming wikis out there - for years. They still list me as such, though I've gone inactive for a fair while. Still, if I even attempted a move like this, I would be laughed out of my position.

Disagree with the section? as an admin, delete it, and put a discussion on the talk page over it's formatting or the like. I still believe that section is justified to be there, but that aside, that is the sane course of action in anyone's book.

The absolutely wrong answer is to nuke all edits in the past nine months. I would have been out on my ass within minutes if I dared to do that, and I am shocked that this was seen as the best course of action from this admin. Their actions have gutted the page completely, and I'm left aghast that this has happened. Forget me being a fan of Jim's, that is not the reason I am posting this. As an admin, to think this could happen with any page on the official wiki, I am shocked beyond comprehension. --Kizzycocoa (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia takes living person biographies very seriously, and for good reason. It's the role of the admins to make sure there's no possibility of a violation that could be considered defamatory (such as poorly-sourced, negative content). That said, have you considered bringing your concerns up directly to the involved party? clpo13_(talk) 01:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I had thought he would find it here, but I'll go post to their page in the event he does not. This is simply unacceptable. It defies all logic that this is acceptable. --Kizzycocoa (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, too bad there's a difference between a Minecraft gaming wiki and a wiki that's meant to be an encyclopedia. If you don't want to see reverts going to 9 months ago, then don't make edits that directly contradict how articles are supposed to be written. It was not just the sections I was deleting that were the problems.. All the other sections had youtube citations as well, the "Digital Homicide" and "Tumblr threats" were simply the most egregious of them all. Those needed to be deleted absolutely, but the other sections were only marginally better. 206.45.74.203 (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I stand by my comments on the Digital Homicide section being notable. However, I find it deplorable that this was the action picked to "fix" the problem. I am utterly shocked at the conduct.--Kizzycocoa (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

And I am shocked that no matter how many people tell you what you're doing is incorrect, you stand by it and won't budge on that position at all. 206.45.74.203 (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I admit the threats section did not have enough sources to substantiate itself, but a year-long feud between a journalist and a developer (which had involved 20 games, a 1 hour 40 minute long interview and enough of a meltdown that several of his peers, Geek.com and many other smaller websites covered the saga, as well as many videos of Jim's and an entire section of his live show were dedicated to them) I saw as notable, with enough sources that it is clear that it happened, and was a big part of his career.

Even so, if you had disagreed with it as an admin, you delete it and make a note on the talk page. You don't nuke the entire page of all edits from the last 9 months. That's insane, and I'm shocked this is a thing that can happen. --Kizzycocoa (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kizzycocoa: here on Wikipedia we have a saying that many editors think is very important: "Be bold". That means that editors are encouraged to make dramatic changes if they feel that it improves the encyclopedia. I'm sorry that you feel a lot of work has been undone, but no one is going to support your call to restore it simply because it was in the article for a long time. What they might support is the restoration of selected material provided there are enough appropriate sources - and not blogs or videos. I suggest we move past the unproductive complaints about Prodego's edit and start a potentially productive discussion about what should be in the article. Gamaliel (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, if we are to follow the wikipedia policy to the letter, we cannot get much further, if at all, beyond what we have at present.

Jim sterling is a video game journalist. If any news happens with Jim, he is the one to report on it first, and does so thoroughly. So, many parts of his career go without official sources. This includes his personal life (Which his wife had helpfully corrected), this includes his political views, his voice acting roles, his history of previous independent works, his involvement with the Steam Greenlight program and more. A lot of his career goes unmentioned, particularly after his massively successful move to independence.

Without sourcing to his works on YouTube which was done previously, the page will mostly be inaccurate and outdated. As popular as he is, Jim is a video games journalist at the end of the day. He is notable, but not flooded with sources by larger news outlets. You rarely get any stories on journalists from bigger sources Wikipedia will accept. It is impossible to build an accurate page while adhering to every letter of the wikipedia citing guidelines. By following those guidelines to the letter, the page is very outdated, and will be outdated in the future. --Kizzycocoa (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm afraid this argument isn't going to get much traction. We will work with you to make the article as up to date and complete as we can given these rules, but we have very firm rules about what goes in articles about living individuals, and this board is where those rules are discussed and enforced. You can use less than high quality sources for some innocuous bits of information, but anything remotely controversial must be sourced to reliable secondary sources. We would rather have an outdated biography than risk Wikipedia being used as a platform to harm living individuals, purposefully or not. Gamaliel (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

the problem is, where can we source information like this?

Looking at the page pre-nuke, we can't possibly cite anything in his personal life. He lives in Mississippi, has a step-child, a wife and is in an open relationship. This are no news outlets in the whitelist that has covered this, except for Jim himself. His wife has personally made edits to correct this, but we have no source outside of this. Isn't this important for the article?

Then, his career and voice acting. How could we go about citing that? This is a part of his career and the works he has been involved with, but no reputable source will note down every stage of his career, from Podtoid to Fistshark Marketing, and all the projects between. There is a clear trail and connection to all of them through more primary sources such as tweets and game credits, but it's not going to be in the scope for game outlets.

How on earth can we paint an accurate picture in these circumstances? The facts are there, and some verified by Sterling's own family for the more personal details. But, we can't note them down? Jim's in a place where he is undoubtedly notable, but the details are not, and we cannot accept any details from the horse's mouth? --Kizzycocoa (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

If it hasn't been covered by notable, credible, sources of information then it isn't notable enough to be encyclopedic. 206.45.74.203 (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. That's generally the standard here. We don't have to cover every stage of his career, only the notable highlights. If there's an important, non-controversial project that deserves a mention, it can be cited to primary sources, there's nothing wrong with doing that to cover a gap here and there. Large parts of the article and controversial incidents, however, cannot solely rely on primary sources. Gamaliel (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I simply have to disagree. Relevant and accurate information about a subject can rarely be obtained solely through news articles. There is a lot of notable information, such as the more personal details and career notes, that cannot be sourced via third parties, but are certainly worth putting on the page. There simply is no third party that could source this, unless we get into interviews and the like, which I believe is "original research", though ref 2 on the page seems to differ. Yet these are details that are very relevant to Jim as a person, and to ignore them is to do a disservice to the page.

I mean, how on earth can the page be kept accurate through the sole sources of third parties for every point, given the field Jim Sterling occupies as a journalist himself? He is notable, that cannot be denied. But he is not the subject of journalism, he is the journalism. It will be next to impossible to build an accurate up-to-date page solely on third party sources.

I mean, we had this discussion on the talk page, following which I talked with an Administrator of the wiki. The general feel of what they said, is if there is a notable source on the situation or subject, that can give way to some primary sources on the details. In essence, as long as there is notability, the finer points can be defined through more direct sources. I would like another admin to clarify, is this not the case? If it is, to what extent is this the case by wikipedia's standards? --Kizzycocoa (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Kizzycocoa – I think we would all agree with DMacks that primary sources can be used to support strong, third party, independent sourcing of the type described at WP:SOURCE. What we cannot do is reverse this relation - where a majority of the information comes from primary sources. Prodego ^talk 02:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

If you follow someone around to multiple pages and call them a whiner, why are you surprised they are going to dig their heels in a little bit? How about you step back from this and let others engage this editor in a more productive manner? Gamaliel (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Just letting people know I pinged the Video game WikiProject on the discussion. GamerPro64 04:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• The feud with Digital Homicide probably does need to be in there, as it was covered by independant (of the feud) gaming media due to the extensive and ongoing nature of it. I took a look at the previous versions, and as written and sourced, it was not compliant with wikipedia's requirements for inclusion in a BLP so it was correct to remove it. Sometimes with something that large the best option is to nuke it from orbit and start from scratch. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I have left a (large) response on Talk:Jim Sterling#WP:BLP violations and sourcing. Prodego ^talk 02:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

John Martin (singer)

Article still has a somewhat promotional style.

E.g. "John's vocal tracks are a list of hits including ... all the way down to an in progress track ... with David Guetta": requires citation. It also seems implausible that a track can be a hit while it is still "in progress."

E.g. "At 13, Martin bought a guitar, formed a band, and began playing Nirvana covers." Requires citation.

"John Martin is now working on his debut album which was planned to be released in August 2014, however it has been delayed awaiting a massive new collaboration before the release" is clearly promotional and requires citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.174.182.74 (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

mark evanier

hi the mark evanier article publications section is missing a lot of groos. dark horse & other groos. -groo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.161.80.195 (talk) 08:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I have reposted this concern over at Talk:Mark Evanier, where it more appropriately belongs. Nothing to bother with here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)