Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
Shortcuts WP:BLPN WP:BLP/N WP:BLPNB WP:BLP/NB This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. 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.

I had someone point out this article in an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS situation. Offhand the guy has enough notability to where he'd pass A7, but overall notability is still very much in question. What makes this a BLP issue is that the article is a promotional mess and needs an extremely thorough cleaning. A quick search brings up stuff like this, which discusses him selling some of his real estate, but I'm unsure if he's really notable per WP:NPERFORMER or WP:NBIO. He's worked with notable people, but we all know that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so... Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Jeffrey Epstein
• Talk:Jeffrey_Epstein#Lead_section

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the first sentence, given the current state of the article, sourcing, and general notability of the subject - "He is a registered level three sex offender." should also be removed however as it is labelling rather than a summary of the article content (which is adaquately explained right before it). Previous consensus is that labels such as 'they are a sex offender' even when they are extremely prolific about it, are not used for people whose notability is not solely because of their sexual activities - in deference to a descriptive approach. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. If being found guilty as an offender were the only reason they were notable (taking BLPCRIME into account), then yes, it would be reasonable since there would be litle else to describe him objectively. But for Epstein, his previous career and funding prior to the charges appears to be notable on their own. As such, the first sentence should be a dispassionate statement of objectivity ("...is an American financier." is how it reads now and is neutral and impartial, per BLP). After that, then there's more room to give the context of the criminal charge and resulting penalty can be discussed. --MASEM (t) 15:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Half of the article is about his sexual history, investigation, conviction, lawsuits etc. The lead summarises the article. I agree the labelling needs to go, but you cant get away with the article content as it is currently and not mention his conviction in the lead. Arguably his article has been overly padded in the finance and philanthropy areas as well. The references to his friendship with Prince Andrew are only relevant when you consider the accusations made against them both later in the article. Ignore this, lead yes, lead sentence no. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)In the lede, it has to be mentioned, but this talk section asked about the "lede sentence", which is where it does not belong, unless that's the only reason he was notable, which very much is not the case here. --MASEM (t) 15:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Ah right, well I agree there - my misreading. I have amended my comment above. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he should be so described (though the exact wording might be altered). It is admittedly a crude metric, but googling his name gives an idea as to where emphasis is on the coverage. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a bad way to gauge it really. Google 'Jimmy Saville' and you will get pages and pages of results about his sexual activities before his primary notability. And the first sentence of his biography (and he is dead! so not even a BLP concern!) does not use 'he was a sexual offender' either. Google suffers terribly from recentism, so search's will always provide the latest news, rather than provide an accurate reflection of their life in total. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me as a failing of the Jimmy Saville page, but reasonable minds can differ. Dumuzid (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a failing of Rolf Harris too. The general consensus previously has been that taking into account BLP concerns & npov, people notable for things other than criminal acts have a more descriptive approach than 'is a *insert label*' to the lead. Of course there are counter examples like O.J Simpson (is a convicted felon), so its swings and roundabouts. Wesley Snipes does not say he is a tax evader. Max Clifford says he is a convicted sex offender. Bernie Madoff (a more direct financial counterpart) does not say felon in the first sentence. Adam Johnson is only a footballer And so on. This is probably something that needs to be nailed down in guidance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same situation that previously was discussed here about Jared Taylor and above about Richard B. Spenser. There is no question that where there is "negative" information regarding a BLP that significantly contributes to a person's notability and is appropriately sourced within BLP's guidance, that information should be included in the lede at some point. But the first sentence of the lede needs to be as objective and dispassionate as possible - inserting that negative information as the first thing the reader reads impacts the tone immediately.

I've pointed out in other BLP and other bios, using spot checks at GA/FA, that nearly all of these start of with "John Q. Smith (birthdate) is a (nationality) (career/profession)." Zero contentious or subject facts, and often not immediately getting to why that person is notable. Subsequent sentence then open up about context. A writer or actor might have a list of representative works; an athlete a list of teams/positions; a politician with a list of other offices, and in such a case as a person that their criminal history is more significant than their other features, an explanation of their criminal history. Putting things in that order consistently avoids setting the wrong tone for the article. The only time that a negative aspect should be in the first sentence is if the only thing that person has "contributed" towards society is their criminal acts, (such as most of the names on the convicted serial killer lists) because there is no way that that will impact the tone of the rest of the article which is going to be about their criminal acts and actions from that. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This view counsels a false "neutrality" and requires us to override an evaluation of what appears in reliable sources. If someone's notability is mainly "negative", then our portrayal should follow that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the sex trial is only one aspect of the person's life, and should not be given undue weight in the lead, which is supposed to be a précis of the entire article. "False neutrality" is totally inapt as a claim here. The body of the BLP is where the details go, not the lead. Collect (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said on the Epstein talk page, I'm not keen on putting "X is a sex offender" in the opening sentence of any article. It lacks proper context and does not establish notability. Joe Soap from Oshkosh may be a registered sex offender, but he doesn't have his own Wikipedia article. The WP:LEAD is not a rush to condense things into the opening sentence, and the current wording in Jeffrey Epstein makes no attempt to hide the sex offence conviction.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said on the article talk page, Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris are very well-known for their professional careers, at least in the UK. Outside finance circles, Epstein is relatively unknown for his work, but widely notorious for his pimping. It is what he's known for. In this case, we owe it to the reader to identify the thing he's most notable for in the first sentence. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is nothing that requires us to establish notability in the first sentence. The lede eventually needs to come to this, yes, and ideally in the first paragraph, but when you start attaching subjective labels (positive or negative) or contentious aspects, you need to have room to give sufficient context to explain those, and the first sentence of an article is nowhere near enough space to do that. As soon as you try to force this type of information in without context, you impact the tone of the article even if the information is factually true or well-backed by RSes. (I'd also argue that taking the Epstein example, while he may not be known for the financial aspects outside of the UK financial circle, the fact that he is well known within that circle is part of what makes him notable, and not a trivial aspect relative to the sex offenses. Notability is not judged on a global scale, but within context of the field of interest, and in this case, as a UK financier, he seems very well established). --MASEM (t) 14:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That he's a sex offender is not a "subjective label". It's proven and he's admitted it. Neither is this a "contentious aspect". No one challenges that fact and it's what he's best known for, and first known for outside finance circles. I know it's unpleasant and harsh but, well, he is a convicted sex offender and a financial advisor/financier, and leaving either of those points out of the first, defining sentence would be doing the reader a disservice. This may well affect the tone of the article but, really, it's Epstein himself who's responsible, and it's not our job to play it down for aesthetic purposes. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of him being a sex offender, while fully backed by sources, is a contentious point by focusing on a negative aspect over any positive contributions he made as a financier, or any other neutral, objective facts about him. This is the principle behind the concept of character assassination, which WP should not at all be engaging in. We have to describe his crime and subsequent punishment in the lede, no question, but to just state that "he is a sex offender" without giving any context to what the original crimes or what he did otherwise impacts the tone, as "sex offender", even if true, creates a negative image of the person. It is necessary to set up who is he and the brief fundamentals of the case that led to him being convicted of the crime. BLP requires us to take a dispassionate tone, and to that end we must be very careful of carelessly throwing such terms around without proper context. --MASEM (t) 15:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me there. The fellow is a sex offender. It's a fact. It's what he's widely known for. You're worried that us describing him as such creates a negative image of him. Uh huh. It creates an accurate picture of him that happens to be negative - and that's down to him. Leaving it out of the first sentence to deliberately make him look less "negative" would be letting down our readers. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term "sex offender" while accurate carries a lot of weight that putting in the first sentence of a BLP as a summary of their whole life, without any further context, particularly in considering how most other BLPs are written (limiting the first sentence to "profession" rather than other factors of a person's life). It makes us excessively judgemental out of the door. Holding the details for a sentence or two after getting past the boring details drastically improves our tone. --MASEM (t) 02:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak No The opening sentence is generally reserved for what the subject is most famous or notable for. Unlike in the case of Darren Sharper whose notoriety as a serial rapist has almost certainly equaled, and arguably surpassed, his fame as an NFL player, I don't think that is the case here. The conviction is covered in the lead. I believe that is sufficient. It is also worth noting that it his fame in the financial world that rings the WP:N bell, not his criminal conviction. Again, unlike truly notorious sex offenders, this is not the kind of offense that on its own merits would justify an article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even on Sharper's article, where the lede sentence is "Darren Mallory Sharper (born November 3, 1975) is a former American football safety and serial rapist.", there's far too little context that makes that sentence rather negative in tone and creates implications (was he a serial rapist throughout his life? (obviously not, but again, no context in that sentence alone). Instead we could say "Darren Mallory Sharper (born November 3, 1975) is a former American football safety. He is currently serving a twenty-year sentence after being convicted of being a serial rapist in 2015." Same information, but context is everything. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. You don't need to provide detailed material in the opening sentence. Indeed, normally an opening sentence should be a bland statement identifying the subject's principle claim(s) to fame. There is plenty of context further down the lead and in the article. Further, he is at least as famous as a serial rapist as he is for his NFL career. As I noted in the lengthy talk page discussion on this subject, if I were limited to citing only one claim to notability, i.e. his NFL career or his criminal one in the opening sentence, I'd opt for the latter. However, we are digressing. The topic here is Mr. Epstein. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • See, this is back to my point that the lede sentence does not need to address notability if it eliminates the needed context to speak about the person in an impartial, dispassionate tone. I have said before that if you spot check FA and GA articles on BLP and bios across the board, nearly every first sentence is "(name) (born (birthdate)) is a (nationality) (list of professions/careers)." For the bulk of those, that sentence does not establish any type of notability, but instead smoothly leads into sentences that do establish the notability such as important works they are a part of, awards and recognition, and in cases of those with criminal records, the crimes they're known for, because now you have the space to write out that notability in context. I recognize the importance of trying to cover a major crime a person has been convicted that contributes a significant part of their notability, but cramming that into the first sentence is poor writing under BLP. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, Masem, while admittedly not a BLP, you would favor "Jeffrey Dahmer was an American combat medic" as the first sentence of said article? Dumuzid (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, because in the case of people like Dahmer, where there was no other notability of any type for that person (eg would fit the qualifications of BLPCRIME), then identifying them as a criminal is the only way to handle it. All other cases here being described is where there is some degree of notability prior to the crime in question, so to highlight the crime without additional context takes away from the other notable aspects. --MASEM (t) 16:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of straw man going on here. Nobody has suggested removing or playing down the fact that Jeffrey Epstein has a sex offence conviction, but it doesn't need to be in the opening sentence.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People come to this article to find out who this is. He is a convicted sex offender who also happens to be a financier, and dropping the former from the first, defining sentence would be eliding, and by omission dishonest, and letting the reader down. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a distinction between the first sentence and subsequent sentences in the lead? Not that I know of. This is a question of style, not of substance. Stylistically we should favor establishing the more mundane reason for notability prior to establishing the more exciting reason for notability. Bus stop (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence is the defining sentence. "Sex offender", more than "financier", defines this subject. Yes, that's harsh, and a tragedy for him. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are being judgmental, when you should be dispassionate. Why is the first sentence the defining sentence? Bus stop (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It tells the reader who the person is, or what the thing is. I'm not being judgmental. The court made the judgment, after a great deal of evidence and deliberation. The man is a sex offender, and it's what he's most widely known for. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is a financier who is a sex offender, not a sex offender who is a financier, and this applies not only to this article, but to similar cases, because notability in any setting concerns itself with the more standard occupations and accomplishments rather than more oddball areas of notability such as unusual sexual activity. Bus stop (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No. That is not his primary reason for notability. Simple test: if he were a wealthy financier but not a sex offender, would he still have an article? If he were a sex offender but not a wealthy financier, would he still have an article? --GRuban (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• He would definitely have an article, regardless of his background in finance, because of who he pimps to, like Heidi Fleiss. It's what he's most notable for. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That would work, were he convicted of it, or admit to it. Was he, or did he? If all we could say is "sex offender" it wouldn't. Just sex offenders are convicted every day and don't get articles. --GRuban (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes But lets sound more like a broadsheet than a tabloid. For example, say he "is an American financier and convicted sex offender." While he was first notable as a financier, he is very well known because of his offenses. The lead should then summarize both aspects of his activities. TFD (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a paragraph that keeps getting added to the Gordon H. Smith page that is only sourced to a youtube video, and a local news station article that doesn't talk about Gordon at all [[1]],[[2]]. I would appreciate some additional eyes and patrollers on this page to make sure that content being added is BLP compliant. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The first and most obvious concern is that large swaths of the bio are unsourced and promotional in tone; the second is whether these passages are copyright violations. I've seen identical passages at other websites, but don't know whether they've copied Wikipedia or vice-versa. Some assistance would be great. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Todd McKenney is an Australian entertainer. For quite a while, his biography has included the referenced statement that "In 2008, McKenney was found unconscious in a Sydney park and arrested for alleged possession of GBH. The charges were later dropped.". An IP, 144.132.183.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), removed it earlier today, just as I had been planning to ask about it here. The same IP has removed it before, in NOvember 2015. Since an IP removal could easily be reverted again, I would like wider input on whether it was UNDUE, so that its removal (if re-added) can be supported by consensus here. (Assuming there is consensus, of course). Thanks. EdChem (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• UNDUE: Lots of people have interactions with the police, or have charges laid and then dropped. This is not a significant incident for McKenney's biography, especially as it implies he is a drug user, which can damage his reputation. EdChem (talk) 11:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Follow Up: The content has been re-inserted into the article. Can I now get some views on whether or not this is UNDUE or a BLP violation? EdChem (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove as UNDUE: Ed, your analysis is spot on. The implication that he uses illegal drugs is clearly negative. As to the charges being dropped, in common law jurisdictions, such as Australia, this usually indicates that there was not enough evidence available to prove the charge in court. --Allen3 ^talk 13:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Coleman III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I outlined an edit request over at Talk:Chase Coleman III a week ago. I realize the requested edits list is backlogged and that "there is no deadline." However, was hoping one of the editors who regularly visits this noticeboard might be willing to take a look and give feedback. Please note I have a declared COI with the subject of the page. Thanks in advance. NinaSpezz (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have replied on the talkpage Govindaharihari (talk) 06:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Joseph Piotroski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Joseph Piotroski is a full professor at Stanford University Graduate School of Business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garden girl (talk • contribs) 18:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Garden girl: The article states that he was an associate professor as of 2010. If he's been elevated to full professor, please provide us a source (or link) where we can verify it, and the article can be updated. —C.Fred (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could external neutral editors with competence on these issues please review this discussion at the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talk page and give their considered opinions as to whether attributing to the subject not his own words, indeed he was quoting a phrase, in his own native language, but as they were (mis)translated in the Iranian English source should take precedence over quoting what he actually said, as Iranian specialists (highly critical of that government) have established? Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The official Iranian Government translation, which came first, is what is written first in the article. It is then followed by the competing claims about the translation. Neither translation is given preference in Wikipedia's neutral voice, and nothing was removed. There's clearly a dispute over the translation, the Iranian Government, NY Times, and others translate it as wiped off the map, using sense-for-sense translation, while others like Amirpur and Juan Cole use literal translation. As an aside, literal translation is generally considered bad practice, particularly because it's poor at translating idioms, and not frequently done in professional work. (http://www.copypanthers.com/resources/literal-translation/, https://books.google.com/books?id=myLDA0_brhcC&pg=PA858&lpg=PA858&dq) Wikipedia needs to have a neutral voice. Describing the Iranian Government translation, which was backed by the New York Times and others as a "mistranslation" isn't appropriate. What my edit did was to simply place things in the correct order in time. Stating "was translated by Iranian state-run media" and then going immediately into both sides of the dispute. I'd also add that Nishidani's claim that anything was "established" is incorrect. Drsmoo (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Iranian gov translation gives evidence complacently wishing for a crime, genocide. The scholarly translation, and its technical glosses, indicate no such implication existed in the original Farsi where 'disappear from the pages of history' bears no such connotation. You cannot on a biography of a living person spin the English translation (=MA spoke of genocide against Israel) as having priority over what the man actually said. We don't even know if the genius who translated that thus into English knew the precise implications of the idiom he adopted (the words are of Ayatollah Khomeini, a lunatic in many accounts, but he expressly scuttled the Shah's atom bomb creation programme on the grounds that in Shi'a theology, weapons of mass destruction (i.e. genocidal) are against God's law. Jeezus. This place is so weird, one even ends up sounding like an apologist for a regime I dislike profoundly.Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like a BLP violation to me. It's not for us to decide which translation is "correct", and the "wipe off the map" one has some excellent sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? The only two Iranian specialists we have, both saying outgright that Ahmadinejad is despicable, say it is a mistranslation.Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Put it this way: if we have secondary sources on the original text of what X said, and a translation into another language of what X said, which is more important in terms of BLP, the (a) secondary source that gives the literal translation, or (b) the translation that gives the contested version, which (a) states is a mistranslation, that says something not in the original text? Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying the translations published by the Iranian government, the New York Times, and others, were not prepared by "Iranian specialists"? If your intent is to argue that we should emphasize the literal translation above all others, regardless of weight, you will find no traction here. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should explain that he was misquoting Khomenei, that the student's group reporting his speech used Khomenei's words and years later experts pointed out that his comments were mistranslated. BTW direct translation from original languages is allowed in Wikipedia, many articles contain foreign languages and we can go to Wikipedia:Translation for help. According to Google translate, the correct translation is "Our dear Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."[3] A commentator at the Guardian outlines the story.[4] Also, if we include the quote, we should explain its significance. A straightforward reading is that the territory would return to the status quo ante of Palestine. How that would be achieved and what would have to the post nati inhabitants is speculation. TFD (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia isn't about giving our personal interpretations but reporting based on reliable sources. Wikipedia can't describe a translation put out by the Iranian Government, the BBC Monitoring Service, multiple newspapers including the New York Times, explained by Sohrab Mahdavi (one of Iran's most prominent translators) Siamak Namazi (managing director of a Tehran consulting firm), Ahmad Zeidabadi (an Iranian journalist, academic, writer and political analyst) and which was declared an accurate translation by a later BBC committee, as a "mistranslation" in Wikipedia's neutral voice even if Google Translate and an opinion on the Guardian comment page agree with you. In other words, it isn't Wikipedia's purview to determine which side is "correct", only to describe the event. Drsmoo (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It can say that if it is reliably sourced. Anyway this is not different from any other case where a second source inaccurately reports what is in a primary source. Suppose a reliable source on Shakespeare says Hamlet said, "To be or not to be, that is the answer." Well that disagrees with the primary source, so we know it is false. Because what we have is a conflict between reliable primary and secondary sources of what the president said. And primary sources are a better source for what they say than secondary sources. Out of curiousity, what do you think was actually said? TFD (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a false analogy. The sources aren't disagreeing over what Shakespeare wrote, they're disagreeing over the best way to translate Hamlet into Farsi. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one disagrees on the exact translation of the original. It has been transliterated, and glossed, word for word, by several sources, and nowhere are the words 'Israel', 'map' or 'wipe off' in the original text. Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I know nothing about this and care even less. It seems like a content dispute rather than a BLP issue. The one thing that does interest me is the linguistic issue, with regards to which is a better form of translation: literal or free. This is actually a rather archaic viewpoint on translations, as there is really a full spectrum in between, from the very literal to the semantic, the faithful and the free. Literal is often seen as being faithful to the text while distorting the intended meaning, whereas free attempts to stay faithful to the intended meaning while distorting the text. Neither is always better or worse than others, but both have their advantages and disadvantages. Take Google translate for an example of the very literal (for example, translating words like por favor as "for favor"). It's more helpful in understanding the language than the content of an article. If it's the meaning that is intended to be conveyed, then a more semantic or free approach is usually chosen. If we have sources for both then I see no problem with including both, simply explaining where they came from and why. Zaereth (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edit we have is tampered with, and that itself is a patent abuse of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.

In 2005, Ahmadinejad, in a speech praising the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini, was translated by Iranian state-run media as saying that "Israel must be wiped off the map

This is false attribution. No one 'says': One 'quotes'. You could write correctly

Ahmadinejad was translated by the Iranian source as agreeing with a (slight mis)quotation from Ayatollah Kohomeini:

The original Farsi text is known, and has been literally construed by several sources, areas specialists, and that is not disputed by MEMRI, an Israeli website which is widely acclaimed for its coverage (hostile but often accurate) of Arabic and Persian sources (Islamic)

(Imam) Khomeini said:”This regime that is occupying Quds (Jerusalem)must be eliminated from the pages of history.’

That is also how the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs translated it. So both MEMRI specialists and the JCPA, famous for their stout advocacy on behalf of Israel, agree with Juan Cole, Katajun Amirpur and others (Trita Parsi, Treacherous Alliance, Yale University Press 2007 p.285 n.1) All of these sources are hostile to the present government of Iran.

It has been extensively argued, by minute control of the way this meme translation we use circulated, that rather than translate directly from Farsi, the New York Times, the BBC, and Reuters drew on the English version, and then later backtracked saying it was translated from the Farsi (oddly enough, as any translator knows, all choosing the exact same idiom as used by the state-run Iranian English news service. I am among other things a translator. When you get the exact same words from 3 bilingual translator translating the same text, the conclusion is almost inevitable that they are copying each other, or the one original source). Any wiki reader of the press will recognize that wire and news services copy and paste, more often than not, and we give them undue precedence over the original, verifiable words.

Note therefore that rather than say, Ahmadinejad quoted Khomeini (they are not words attributable to Ahmadinejad), we have him portrayed as (a) praising Khomeini, and then (b) stating as his own view the words misattributed to him. This is obvious. No one to my knowledge ever cited Khomeini's words as an example of genocide. When the Ahmadinejad cited them, they became A's genocidal declaration. This is a BLP problem.Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Heather Marsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While there are numerous references at the end of this article, many seem to be to dubious sources.

I suggest that this article be reviewed for potential non-notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdf987654 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please review cited sources. Article does not meet Wikipedia criteria and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.34.224 (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure he's notable - the sources certainly don't demonstrate that he is. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi, I would like to edit the Amy Schumer article to add the following two paragraphs to the "Personal Life" section:

In May 2014, Schumer gave a speech at the Ms. Foundation for Women gala which was described as "intense, [and] inspirational" which touched on her formative years where she struggled with a "crisis of confidence, [and,] body-image issues". In her speech Schumer described a "regrettable sexual encounter" with a fellow student whom she described as "wasted". She described herself during the encounter as "faceless, and nameless" until shortly after when she declared herself as "beautiful", "smart, and worth more than this" and left to room. She continues to say that even though she turned her life around after that ordeal and is now a successful comedienne, she can still be "reduced to that lost college freshman quickly". Whenever she is down due to criticism and she wants to "quit ... being a woman altogether", she can quickly turn those feelings around by saying "I am not laying in that freshman year bed anymore ever again". [link to the vulture article goes here]

Her description of the "regrettable sexual encounter"[link to the vulture article goes here] was controversial and the encounter was widely discussed at the time in various online forums and social media websites. [links to those sites go here]

The first paragraph is the summary of a speech she made in 2014 that details personal details of her life. It is heavily based on this link:

http://www.vulture.com/2014/05/read-amy-schumers-ms-gala-speech.html

That offers a short description of the speech along with the transcript. From what I understand other editors do not have an objection on this first paragraph.

The second paragraph has a description that states that the speech was controversial and was discussed in online forums. I believe the existence of online forums which discussed the speech is evidence enough to say that it was controversial and discussed whereas other editors disagree and call this "original research". In their view I can only call this speech controversial and discussed if I can reference a third party reliable source which describes it as such. I disagree.

So wikipedians, can you offer guidance on this regard?

Thank you very much.

NutellaPancake (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This sound more as an OR issue: if your claim that the speech was controversial can only be sourced by pointing to forums where the controversy arose, then its original research. You'd need a secondary source outside of those forums to address the issue that those forums found the speech controversial. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EG a newspaper or other secondary source saying 'Amy Schumer's speech prompted controversy in the online world' yadda yadda... However even then this would probably fall foul of WP:UNDUE, as a very minor thing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well that settles it I suppose, I'm incorrect at it is indeed OR. I must say that I find the argument a bit for fetched however controversial means "giving rise ... to public disagreement", a 10 year old could deduct that there was public disagreement by looking at the content of the forums. I feel like I'm arguing that ships exist on the deck of a ship and no one believes me because I cannot handily find a source.

So controversial is a bridge too far, could I call the speech "widely discussed"? NutellaPancake (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has any reliable source said it was widely discussed? Just pointing at some forums and going 'it was discussed here' would not indicate that. And having looked at the article talkpage I dont think the fact a load of MRA trolls on the internet tried to pass off her having sex with a guy (she thought and described as wasted) as rape means it needs to be shoehorned into the article. She had an unfortunate experience in college, talked about it in a speech, some people on the internet got angry about it because they have agendas to fill. I would want *strong* sourcing to include anything even approaching that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was widely discussed not only on Men's rights forums, but also forums dedicated to discussing women's issues among others. As far as I can tell in none of the forums, even the men's rights forums, is there actual consensus on whether it was just 'regrettable sex' or something else. Even with 'agenda's to fill'. I'd also argue that actions of 'MRA trolls' has no bearing on my suggested edit.

There seems to be consensus among you guys that the second paragraph should not be included. Can I get confirmation that it is OK to add the first paragraph by itself? NutellaPancake (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Its a speech, that apart from the Vulture reposting (which has zero commentary other than calling it inspirational), appears to have garnered no comment from reliable sources, no extended discussion from reliable sources, or have impacted on her career or notability in any real fashion. Its trivia. 'Woman gives speech in which she says had bad sex'. Its hardly Dr King 'I have a dream!' material is it. The first paragraph does not outright violate the policy (BLP) and can be sourced, but the question of if it belongs in the article is one for the talkpage concerned. Not every factoid of a celebrities life needs to be in their biographies. This is where WP:UNDUE kicks in. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The part that I included shines light to her personal life and her struggles. It is far more relevant to the 'personal life' section than the content currently included "She has been friends with Taking Back Sunday drummer Mark O'Connell since childhood". WP:UNDUE doesn't kick in as the content I want to include is not a minority view: it isn't like a majority of us say 'she didn't have self esteem issues' and a small minority says 'she did have self esteem issues', where we wouldn't give the minority view undue weight. We all agree that Amy Schumer, by her own description, had self esteem issues in college and that she overcame those issues. No?NutellaPancake (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For additional context please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amy_Schumer#Dayle23.27s_edits and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amy_Schumer#Verifiable_facts. There have been multiple attempts to add variations of this. The earliest versions described this as an example of non-consensual sex, basically saying Schumer may have raped a durnk guy in college, and this sparked controversy and cited reddit and blogs for this. This was objected to as WP:OR and a BLP violation due to the controversial content. The current suggested version above has that significantly down-played compared to earlier versions added to the article. However, most of the suggestions seems to be WP:OR or WP:UNDUE. So far, this speech has apparently been mostly ignored by reliable sources, only being covered by vulture.com and that source does not specifically focus on the part about the guy being drunk and it does not describe the speech as controversial but rather "inspirational".--DynaGirl (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The vulture.com reporter does call the drunk guy part 'regrettable sex' — Preceding unsigned comment added by NutellaPancake (talk • contribs) 7 October (UTC)