This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
After reading the Wikimedia article on Waibel's lawsuit, I feel like it should be discussed in this article. Can we report the text of what was considered libelous, if it's presented in the clear context of explaining the lawsuit? Text like "Waibel’s research was used for mass analysis of recorded voice data by the American intelligence and military authorities" Andrew Keenan Richardson (talk!) 18:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes, but need to stick to the sources. i.e. that text is from a rotted link, so need to find alternate source. you are going to want to stick strictly to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, given the high visibility. also, there is the primary source document from WMF to link to. Pinsnervy (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see one person drove by to remove the information, without consensus. here is a paradox of "right to be forgotten": when your law firm maintains a page about it, then will you sue them? Too bad Germany does not have super-protect. Pinsnervy (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
