This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

• Alice Y. Ting (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I found this last part of biography of Dr. Ting is totally wrong. The only true thing is she retracted only one paper which was published at Cell, not a sereis of paper's'. This retraction part can be clarified when the sentence get this link: http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/i8/MIT-Probe-Finds-Former-Postdoc.html. From MIT investigation, the falsification was proved to be done by one former postdoc.

Except this one retracted Cell paper, none of her papers are not questionable at all and not retracted. Please provide any authentic link or references for this. If not, this last part may not be included in Dr. Ting's biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.150.32.22 ( talk) 19:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I've removed that section for now. It's borderline WP:COATRACK as the paper was from one of her post-docs but she requested retraction of the paper from Cell as the PI so a short mention is probably warranted, along with a mention that the postdoc did not agree with the retraction. Any more details beyond that probably belong on Amar Thyagarajan as they have contested the retraction. The CEN source linked above mentions a second investigation - anyone have a way to check on that before any of this gets added back in? Ravensfire ( talk) 20:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Added it back in with what seems to be supported by source. Not totally happy so if someone wouldn't mind reviewing, I'd appreciate it. I didn't add anything about that second investigation so might still be worthwhile. Ravensfire ( talk) 21:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Possibly notable, unsure what the criteria is for archivits, but the article is sourced (and probably put together) by Bohle herself. Unwilling to get involved as had previous run in with this person several years ago. However thought the quality and necessary meat of the puff piece probably requires looking at. Obvious copying of text wholesale from [1] for instance. Koncorde ( talk) 22:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Cosplay (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've asked twice in the article above to cite sources for each cosplayer in the list. I've had one editor be abit uncivil when I asked the first time around. I put a note in talk to avert a 3RR situation with me, and kinda forgot about it for several days (unintended cooling off period). Seeing that the only person to reply to me was the uncivil editor, I decided to go and ask again. Then this edit happened, citing "linked articles." I've reverted and disagree with one editors assessment that BLP doesn't apply. Citations are needed, seeing some of them actually do rely on cosplay as an aspect of their work/income and one false statement could be a legal problem. I dunno what else to do, seeing that all this is gonna turn into is an edit war/3RR, and whatnot.-- 293.xx.xxx.xx ( talk) 08:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The section I think you're discussing is "Cosplayers", a list of individuals who are well-known for their participation in cosplay. Since all of the people on the list have their own Wikipedia article, I encourage you to go to their articles, see the relevant citation, and place it on the main article. That is, instead of asking others to cite sources, take it on yourself to locate the sources. It looks like the BLP articles are well-sourced so it shouldn't be a problem to find one that verifies their participation in cosplay. For example, Meg Turney is on the list and on her bio, there are four citations about her notoriety as a cosplayer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Would it make sense for List of notable cosplayers to be its own article, distinct from Cosplay, so that any future WP:BLP issues can be handled distinctly from the concept page? Just a thought. Dwpaul ( talk) 16:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, Dwpaul. Why don't you suggest this on the Cosplay Talk Page? I'm sure Editors involved this subject might volunteer or offer their opinion on that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't break it off as is. It would be a very small stand alone list. My personal preference is to break away an imbedded list after it reaches 20 entries. However, a tabulated list with everyone's picture in costume might add depth to the subject and make a great stand alone list. Hmmm, I might be getting motivated Dkriegls ( talk to me!) 00:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Dkriegls, sometimes, small photos work well in a table format. The images end up pretty small but when the images are regular-size, there isn't enough text to make formatting appealing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I know, I do a lot of lists. I was thinking something like this this Dkriegls ( talk to me!) 03:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

That would work. I'm sure there are a lot of photos out there of the people on the list, it's a matter of finding free images but it looks like you're experienced in that. I'd still run it by the Cosplay Talk Page...it's a whole different look having a list in the confines of a table rather than on a simple bulleted list. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This has been brought to my attention via the cosplay talk page. I like the list (and have said so) but I'll also point out that the editor 293 is referring to wasn't being uncivil to him per se, but making a harsh - albeit justified - comment about the removal of a well referenced and pictured cosplayer.

Also, I'd like clarification - does the list meet BLP criteria, or can it stand alone? My understanding of the section that I refer to is that the list need not be sourced and referenced itself, so long as it is linked to articles that are. Non-linked, or redlinked names are a different matter, but the Cosplayer list has been maintained, and doesn't contain any. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 19:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

PS: I also responded to the OP on the talk page. Chaheel Riens ( talk) 19:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Per your question about should the list be referenced. Yes. We get this question a lot at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists. If you need a specific reference for this, see WP:BURDEN, specifically: "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Inline citation was specifically chosen there. It means in the article at the place of the information presented. Dkriegls ( talk to me!) 20:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Chaheel Riens, the OP was talking about having a reference for every name on the list but I don't think that is common practice on Wikipedia, especially when everyone on the list have their own article. I know they do have references on the Deaths in 2013 page but that is to confirmation of a person's death. But I'd also consider Dkriegls's advice.

There was a suggestion of separating off the list into its own article (above). Right now, it's just a suggestion so, please, weigh in. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are going to include living people on the list, WP:BLP policy requires a properly-cited in-line source for each of them. In the list, not elsewhere. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Ya, if you are making a list that associates someone with the subject of said list, you need an inline citation for that assertion. It may not be common practice on all of Wikipedia, but it is over at WP:Featured Lists and is BLP policy. Dkriegls ( talk to me!) 05:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, as I think is mentioned above, every person on the list has their own WP article which have references of their own, indicating the individual's notability. The references are right there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Randy Neugebauer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• A WP:SPA IP editor has been making edits that are POV to the point of becoming a BLP problem. A minor incident is being made to sound like a major ordeal. Even the title of the section (currently "scolding A National Park Service Ranger") is POV. I've already got 2 reverts in the article and not looking for a third. I opened a discussion in the talk page but thus far, it's been mainly bad faith and "there is a reliable source" and little else in the way of discussion. Because I see a BLP implication, I'm here. Perhaps an uninvolved set of eyes would be helpful. Niteshift36 ( talk) 02:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been bold and I attempted a compromise edit with a neutral section title that is vastly smaller than the original section. I hope this will satisfy the feuding parties, or at least start us down a more reasonable path. Gamaliel ( talk) 20:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• While your edit is less POV than the previous ones and somewhat of an improvement, wouldn't actually discussing whether or not it even belongs be the first route? This whole things reeks of recentism and something that 6 months from now, there won't be a word about. Niteshift36 ( talk) 20:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Given your description of the talk page discussion, I didn't think much would be accomplished there. Gamaliel ( talk) 22:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• The question of whether or not it belongs is the most important one. If it doesn't belong, it really doesn't matter if it is NPOV enough. When the IP editor makes an edit like this one [2] at the article of the son of the subject, it's hard to take his claims seriously. Niteshift36 ( talk) 02:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• The story got pretty massive media coverage and deserves at least a sentence or two in the article. GabrielF ( talk) 03:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Nobody disputes that it got coverage, but we're not a newspaper. The question here is whether or not it's a notable enough occurrence in the overall of his biography. I doubt that in 6 months, anyone will care. And what's being added is much more than a sentence or two. Niteshift36 ( talk) 03:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• The situation clearly belongs. It has been widely commented upon in national news media ( [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and there's lots more), and is at least as important/notable as a piece of legislation he sponsored which gets a paragraph. The question is due weight, and I would agree that it should not have more than a solid paragraph - any more than that would be undue weight. What the IP editor did elsewhere is a matter to be dealt with at those sites, and I agree it's wholly out of order and improper to put anything on the subject's son's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 03:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• What he did shows a lot about his true motive here. And I'd be more inclined to remove that section about some legislation than to let this in. I can't see this getting any play a year from now. As I said on the talk page: I agree he did it for attention. I agree he acted poorly. But that doesn't mean it belongs in the article. Niteshift36 ( talk) 03:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
• As I said on the talk page: The Act does look minor, but a year later, it was still law. A year from now, the media you are enamored with will have long forgotten this. Niteshift36 ( talk) 04:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• If it hadn't gone viral, it probably wouldn't. But it did, and it does. We can't ignore the wide array of reliable sources which condemned his tirade and used the incident to illustrate their opinions and views on the government shutdown. It became a national news incident.
• Now, perhaps the main body of that section belongs in the United States federal government shutdown of 2013, because it is so closely related to that broader topic. That would mean a short mention and a link in his biography - it would not mean deleting all mention of the incident. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 04:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• It may be appropriate for the shutdown article. It isn't for this article. What you personally have put in is much more than a brief mention. And "going viral" isn't the standard. Show me a single policy or guideline that uses "going viral" as a standard. Or really, one that says being national news is the standard. On the contrary, I have cited the policy that points out that many newsworthy things don't belong in the encyclopedia. Newsworthy and notable aren't interchangeable. Niteshift36 ( talk) 04:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• And many newsworthy things do belong in the encyclopedia. What does and doesn't belong is determined by an editorial consensus, and you are the only person involved in this debate who is arguing that there should be no mention of this incident in the biography. You came to BLPN to ask for more input on this issue, and you're getting it: that input is more or less saying that the IP editor was indeed overzealous (the title was indeed wholly out of order) but that the incident as a whole is noteworthy and encyclopedic. There are now three separate, previously-uninvolved editors (Gamaliel, GabrielF and myself) who have reviewed this situation starting from the BLPN and believe that some mention of the incident is warranted. That you don't agree with the input you're getting is neither here nor there. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 04:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Why are you repeating yourself in two locations? This is getting tedious. I'm unimpressed by an IP using multiple accounts. He is still one person. Aside from that, you're the only one who has actually discussed it to any degree. One (Gamaliel) refused to discuss, a second never tried either. Gabriel talked about a sentence or two. You have quite a bit more than that. A sentence or two might be marginally more acceptable, but you keep forcing back in a large paragraph. Even your latest "trim" was 160 words. Much more than the "sentence or two" suggested by the editor you cite as supporting your version. The fact that a few people has just reverted without a reason beyond 'look at all the numbers' really isn't that compelling. Niteshift36 ( talk) 04:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Slightly confused here. What do you mean by 'an IP using multiple accounts'? Someone editing 'anonymously' is by definition not using an account. I didn't see any suggestion here that the IP represented multiple people. And for better or worse, we don't require registration even for editing BLPs and there's no penalty for an IP being dynamic. If someone is intentionally changing IPs or otherwise using multiple ones in violation of WP:SOCK such as evading blocks than we will take action including semi protecting the article if necessary but an editor using multiple IPs isn't automatically doing something wrong. They only 'count' as one editor and may find given the uncertainty over their experience people may give less weight to their views but of course we should be trying to achieve consensus rather than simply counting supporters. I presume you aren't suggesting that Gamaliel is a sock of GabrieldF as I haven't seen any evidence for that, nor that the IP is one of these editors. Nil Einne ( talk) 16:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• What on earth sounded like I said Gamaliel was a sock or was operating a sock? As for your pedantic difference about account v IP...whatever. Once this got trimmed to a reasonable entry, I dropped opposing it. Niteshift36 ( talk) 14:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Would love to see your evidence of one IP using multiple accounts. As others have posted, numerous editors from different IP's have contributed factual information to the article. The "edit war" was widely discussed and posted on his FB page, as others, as evident in the massive spike in page views to the congressman's Wikipage over the last 2 days. You have repeatedly deleted the entire topic, where numerous editors, some obnoxious, some following Wiki guidelines, have repeatedly contributed. Seems like you have an agenda that has nothing to do with the appropriateness of the content. tpcolson ( talk) 18:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)— tpcolson ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Says the account that was revived after 3 years just to comment here. Before this, the only edits you had were to shove your own name into an article [8] .......Whether or not something was factual was never in dispute. At least try to understand the dispute if you're going to comment. Niteshift36 ( talk) 14:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Niteshift36 ( talk) has a bit of history with warning for edit wars and reverts. Just feeding the troll here.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.131.133.245 ( talk) 19:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC) — 108.131.133.245 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• And you have a history of being a SPA and of vandalism. A proven vandal calling me a troll is pretty ironic. Once again: After the entry was trimmed from the bloated, agenda-driven drama-fest you insisted on to something reasonable and neutral, I stopped opposing it. Niteshift36 ( talk) 14:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Raymond W. Godwin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been brought to the attention of the OTRS team. More eyes and keyboards on it would be appreciated. Thanks.-- ukexpat ( talk) 15:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Any particular issues that need to be addressed? GregJackP  Boomer! 16:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes: the purpose of this article is to slander a living person (an attorney). The article appears to have been written by a rival attorney or group arguing for a position contra this attorney. Example: the article has a heading of "call for investigation" and then lists a tribal attorney as the source. That is not unbiased. I'm sure the attorney who is the subject of this article could call for an investigation as well, but that doesn't make it newsworthy. Second example: the article says the subject's book offers advice for how to avoid paying for a baby directly. I have read the entire book, and that (of course) does not appear in the book Third example: the only evidence offered in the article is that of opposing lawyers (see section on baby Deseray). Fourth: just look at the general content and purpose of the article. An unbiased reader will see that this subject does not meet the notability guidelines of Wikipedia...the article was written as retaliation for losing a supreme court case. Keithg2002 ( talk) 19:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)KeithG Keithg2002 ( talk) 19:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, addressing your concerns point by point.

• "The article appears to have been written by a rival attorney or group arguing for a position contra this attorney."

The article has been written by me, who is not an attorney or otherwise involved in any matters with this attorney.

• "the article has a heading of "call for investigation" and then lists a tribal attorney as the source."

Actually, the source listed is the Daily Mail, a general circulation newspaper in the United Kingdom. The source is reliable, verifiable, and independent of the subject of the article. Additionally, the same information appears in numerous other newspapers that could be cited to support it. It clearly identifies that Tripp (the other attorney) is the one calling for the investigation and it is obviously newsworthy, since it has been reported in multiple sources.

• "the article says the subject's book offers advice for how to avoid paying for a baby directly"

The book may not, but the cited source states: "The Godwins write that adoptive parents should not pay birth mothers a fee for the baby itself....", which supports the statement in the article.

• "the only evidence offered in the article is that of opposing lawyers"

Do you have any information that has been published by a reliable source for the other side? I have not found anything on the Bixler's side of the issue.

• "An unbiased reader will see that this subject does not meet the notability guidelines of Wikipedia"

Godwin clearly meets WP:GNG.

I'm open to adding positive information to the article, but I haven't found a whole lot that has been published by reliable sources. For example, I look for the Angels award info for Godwin, but the only one I could find was a self-published source and not reliable. GregJackP  Boomer! 19:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"The Godwins write that adoptive parents should not pay birth mothers a fee for the baby itself...." cannot be supported by a reference which just says not to pay for the baby. Phrasing it that way implies that he says they should do things that are technically not paying for the baby, but amount to basically the same thing. Ken Arromdee ( talk) 20:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You've got it backwards. The source is what says "The Godwins write that adoptive parents should not pay birth mothers a fee for the baby itself...." That definitely supports a statement in the article not to pay for the baby. GregJackP  Boomer! 00:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This article does not adhere to the Wikipedia notability standard: "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Catiedid2 ( talk) 06:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure it does. See WP:GNG. If you don't think that Godwin is notable, feel free to nominate the article for deletion. Then we can let the community decide. GregJackP  Boomer! 11:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Farooq Umar (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

History given regarding education is and other positions held is fictitious. No such qualification exists for the said person. FYI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.136.106.42 ( talk) 11:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Page deleted as a copyright violation (foundational) Bilby ( talk) 05:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Monica Germino (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This has just been turned into a puff piece. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks, JNW ( talk) 21:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

 DoneI've cleaned it up and made it into a well sourced stub/starter article. I've also left a note on the talk page of the SPA who has been adding unsourced content. He/She seems to be cooperative so hopefully things will be smooth going forward.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Well done. Thank you, JNW ( talk) 02:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Quinsy Gario (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear all,

I hereby request the removal of this article since it is nothing more than propaganda and thus in violation with one of Wikipedia's core values: Neutral point of view (NPOV). More so, the information given in the article is false. Sources of citation are the words of this person himself and thus an opinion and not facts.

Thank you for your time and attention

Massimo Catarinella ( talk) 22:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you nominate it for deletion if the concern is notability. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 21:15, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Alex Jones is a controversial conspiracy theorist. There are one or more IPs who have suggested that I have crossed bounds in attempting to apply BLP and WP:TPG against their rants on the talk page (if anything, I think the conversation on the talk page has been given too free reign) but I would welcome additional voices familiar with BLP policies.

Thanks!-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

This is in reference to the Talk page on Rakesh Jhaveri. The section in question is "Controversy regarding Mr Jhaveri's actions". I believe this section violates all the three core policies (Neutral Point of View, Verifiability and No Original Research). The BLP has been written in a negative tone and is basically an attack page on Rakesh Jhaveri.

I would request removing this section from the Talk Page immediately, and if possible disallow such content from being posted to either the original article or to the talk page again.

- Vishal Shah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishalrshah ( talk • contribs) 10:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Blanking the talk page was fine. I've left a warning on the IPs talk page as well. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 21:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I have proded Rakesh Jhaveri since neither the current version, nor a sampling of previous versions, make any particular claims for notability or cite any independent reliable source (I didn't find any on a quick search). Despite having existed for about 4 years, the only time the article seems to "grow" is when poorly sourced and BLP violating allegations of abuse are added. Abecedare ( talk) 01:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

A new editor is adding long poorly-sourced allegations of illegal behavior against Bezos recent purchase of the Washington Post. It's based on OR using letters from a losing bidder. Rjensen ( talk) 12:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I am away for a bit (Wikistrike), but for some reason this article struck me as likely violative of WP:BLP presenting allegations about living persons, and WP:NPOV as it seems to present one and only one version of the truth. I pov-tagged it, but think it likely that the BLP violations are of importance -- even if this "article" has been around a while. The "film" appears mainly to be YouTube stuff -- I found no indication that it was released other than on the Internet and on free DVDs (gift for donations). Collect ( talk) 14:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's a link to the article, for convenience: Koch Brothers Exposed (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I'm not entirely clear on your specific concern - more detail might be helpful. The film appears to me to be clearly notable, given coverage in the New York Times, Rolling Stone, The Nation, etc., and would be almost certain to survive an AfD. The article content suffers the same problems we encounter any time we write about an inherently polemical film - we need to convey the film's themes without endorsing them.

Regarding WP:BLP, it would be most helpful if you could identify the specific content which you feel violates policy. It's obviously not a BLP violation to discuss the view that the Koch brothers play an outsize role in the U.S. political process by virtue of their extraordinary wealth and lax campaign-finance laws. That view is covered extensively by independent, reliable sources. I'm assuming you have specific BLP concerns beyond the simple existence of this article, but unless you articulate them I'm not sure how they can be addressed. MastCell  ^Talk 15:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

First -- the article refers to criminal activity as "allegations." Second, there is not a single balancing word for the material given from the "film." In fact the article refers to the brothers with "corruption" which, as near as I can tell, is a contentious claim per se about living persons. It states that their wealth came from their father "working for Joseph Stalin" which is a contentious claim. It says in Wikipedia/s voice that they wish to destroy social security, that they support home foreclosures (and) pollution. That they seek to destroy the public school system. That they bust trade unions. That they actually intended to disenfranchise African American, Latino, elderly, young and disabled voters. And so on. With not a single disclaimer or rebuttal in the entire article. Pray tell, does it sound like BLP and NPOV are remotely being followed there? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 18:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

An article on the film should represent the film. A rebuttal of specific claims in the film should only be included if a source is discussing the film, otherwise it is original research synthesis. Gamaliel ( talk) 18:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

( edit conflict)I've never heard of this film before but it appears to be an anti-Koch propaganda film. What did you expect it to say? If you want some balance, you need to find reliable sources that provide that balance. Here's one: Fact-checkers and Kochs' 'Big Oil'. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the synopsis section. They appear to reference some YouTube videos. Are these excerpts from the film? If not, this content should probably be removed from the article. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The "film" appears itself to be a YouTube video (sigh). Other polemic films tend to have some balancing of views presented in the article - this one has absolutely not a word against the film at all. And the "Stalin's money" allegation affects living persons, to be sure. Collect ( talk) 19:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The film is either notable or it's not. Its distribution on YouTube is irrelevant here, so there's no need to perseverate about it or continually apply scare quotes. We get it. And you do, of course, know that there is some substance to the mention of Joseph Stalin, since the Koch brothers' father did an extensive business with the Soviet Union under Stalin in the 1930s (or, as the New Yorker put it: "Oddly enough, the fiercely capitalist Koch family owes part of its fortune to Joseph Stalin."). Thus, I don't see a BLP issue here, since the material about Stalin is a) clearly attributed as a claim made by the film, and b) true. MastCell  ^Talk 21:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you could use this source: Fringe Video Maker Upset That Koch Defends Itself by Revealing the Serial Dishonesty in his Latest Attacks on the Company. Apparently, that's Koch's official response to the film. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That looks like an excellent source to me, assuming proper attribution in the body of the Wikipedia article. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• For a 60 min. film, it has a summary as long as most feature films. The "plot summary" if you will, seems to be littered with "references" that are Youtube videos posted by this film company. In that regard, we might be looking at WP:SPS. At the very least, it's using a primary source in a situation where some fairly ugly allegations are being made. The film does deserve an artile, as it easily passes GNG. But there BLP issues should be addressed. Niteshift36 ( talk) 19:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • No question the article needs to be heavily revised. I agree the synopsis section is way too long, and there are too many links to the film itself (as opposed to reliable independent sources about the film). Most critically, the article needs a "Reception" or "Critical Response" section (per WP:MOSFILM), which should convey what reliable independent sources have said about it. None of these are exactly BLP issues, though. MastCell  ^Talk 21:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I've removed the embedded links to YouTube videos which violate WP:EL and are WP:OR since they don't directly comment on the subject of the article. The synopsis is also problematic as it cherry picks specifics rather than giving the reader a disinterested summary of the film. Also since the topic of the film and WP article are living people who are impacted by the content on that WP article, I think there are clearly BLP issues at play here and this noticeboard is an appropriate venue for community discussion about it.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

SOMEONE, please help! We have managed three-time World Sumo Champion Byambajav Ulambayar for 7 years, but someone has incorrectly "changed" his name! Please note:

THIS page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulambayaryn_Byambajav has "mostly" correct information about him, but the name of the entry, "Ulambayaryn Byambajav", is completely wrong. There is no one by that name, and we have no idea who added "yn" to the end of his family name.

THIS page: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Byambajav_Ulambayar&redirect=no includes his CORRECT name. Can someone please close the OTHER page (above), and transfer all info to this page (Byambajav Ulambayar)? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.145.217 ( talk) 17:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Jasna Omejec (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article on the current president of the Croatian Constitutional Court states: "Croatian Constitution was changed in 1999 so that she can become judge of Constitutional Court." However, this claim is not substantiated in any form or fashion and does not as such conform to the standards of Wikipedia. It should therefore be removed or supported by reliable sources, which will be difficult to find as the sentence itself places the constitutional amendments in 1999 when in fact they occurred a year after that. Therefore, not only is the claim on Mrs Omejec unsupported, it is also incorrect as to the most basic facts. Indeed, the way it was added into the stub article suggests that the addition was made with the sole purpose of smearing the character of Mrs Omejec. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.137.56.104 ( talk) 20:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Reverted IP's edits [9] as unsourced and hence potentially BLPvio. Dwpaul ( talk) 19:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

J.J. Jackson (singer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

J. J. JACKSON IS CREDITED AS THE SONG WRITER ON THE SHANGILAS "IT'S EASIER TO CRY." ACTUALLY, THE SONG WAS WRITTEN BY J.J. JACKSON, ROBERT STEINBERG & JOE DE ANGELIS WHO WERE THEN STAFF WRITERS AT KAMA SUTRA RECORDS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCEF:8660:184D:30A4:9946:37F8 ( talk) 20:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Please cite one or more published, reliable sources for this information. See WP:Reliable sources for information about what constitutes a reliable source. We cannot edit information in Wikipedia articles based purely on suggestions by an anonymous user. Dwpaul ( talk) 02:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Also please note that the information that Mr. Jackson was a writer of "It's Easier to Cry" comes from a cited source, which does not appear unreliable. The source does not say that Mr. Jackson was the only writer of the song, only that his "songwriting credits ... include songs such as the Shangrilas' 'It's Easier To Cry' ...". The Wikipedia article says "he wrote" -- but we cannot revise this, since it does not contradict the cited source, without a reliable source that says there were other writers of that specific song (except perhaps to mirror the ambiguous language of the source by saying he received songwriting credit for it). Dwpaul ( talk) 02:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Revised this graf concerning Mr. Jackson's songwriting credits to use the ambiguous language of the source, allowing for the possibility that there were co-writers. In the absence of reliable sources concerning others involved in writing this specific song, this would seem to be the best we can do. Dwpaul ( talk) 14:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion going on at Talk:Gary_North_(economist)#BLP_sources Please respond there to avoid forum splitting.

The article includes several highly controversial statements attributed to North. The claims have sources, but the sources themselves do not provide any provenance for the quotes. For example [10] says "So when Exodus 21:15-17 prescribes that cursing or striking a parent is to be punished by execution, that's fine with Gary North. "When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime," he writes. "The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death." Likewise with blasphemy, dealt with summarily in Leviticus 24:16: "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him."

but has no information about WHERE North purportedly wrote this statement. Is a source like this claiming statements/writings by another person sufficiently reliable to state as a matter of fact in wikipedias voice that North did make those statements? Gaijin42 ( talk) 20:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

On the source 28 the information is base on a rumour. It's not an accurate fact, just a note of gossip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.14.69.174 ( talk) 00:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it, as I think WP:BLPGOSSIP applies here. It's from gossip website Radar Online quoting an "anonymous source". Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Joyce Karlin has a Controversy section that is long and undersourced. The shooting case that sparked this controversy is explained in excessive detail within this section. I think most of it should be merged with the Los Angeles Riots of 1992 article. Since I'm pretty new here, I want to hear other editors' opinions on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calculated Optimism ( talk • contribs) 07:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the case is probably notable to her biography, but as it was, not everything was well-sourced, there was excessive detail and it was undue weight. I've cleaned up and renamed the passage. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 08:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Good work, I've done some additional tweaking and organizing.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Dean Armstrong (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Essentially a resume/press release, without reliable sources. I did some minor trimming and tagged the article, but it remains ripe for editing. JNW ( talk) 14:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I've done some clean up. This article is 7 yrs old and still has zero citations, wow, WP is behind in its work.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Not the first time I've seen that; unless the subject has a devoted following or is a provocateur, a bio can float along like that for the better part of a decade without attracting notice. Thanks for following up. JNW ( talk) 22:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Elena Congost Mohedano (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(Elena Congost Mohedano)nacio en Barcelona — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlosereix ( talk • contribs) 12:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

She was born in Barcelona? That's what it says in the article. What's the problem? § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 15:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Geoffrey Nice has recently had a 'Criticism' section undone, because it references sources since shown to be unfounded and now overturned. This was done most publicly through the agreement of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, as shown in an article in The Times ( 'Is it only judges that are condemned without the right to be heard?' (June 28, 2012)). Their is a potential issue of character attack as the user who posted the poorly sourced critical claims has seemingly only made these edits alone on Wikipedia. ( Wikipedia contributions for 'Correctingly'). Jamesfranklingresham ( talk) 15:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Tell them to read WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 15:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Wendy Maltz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Slow-mo edit war featuring an SPA who insists on introducing a "controversy" section sourced to a 1997 article about a 1991 edition of the subject's book, which has since been revised to remove the material in question. See also ticket:2013101010012899. A few eyes would be helpful in case things get energetic. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 18:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Er ... on looking into it, I think the SPA has it right. It's a Scientific American article, which means it's a highly reliable source. Here's another one from Mother Jones saying the same thing: [11]. In addition, that same quote from that same book is addressed in numerous, and I mean numerous published books, including what seem to be standard high school or college Abnormal Psychology course textbooks: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]... It seems that even if Ms. Maltz took out that horrible suggestion to "just imagine you were sexually abused" in later editions, the genie seems to have left the bottle and her recommendations in her book have become the poster child for implanted or false memories of sexual abuse. Given that, I think it deserves a few sentences - including, of course, that now Ms. Maltz disavows those recommendations, if we have a reliable source for that. But we need a reliable source that says she does disavow those recommendations, as here is The New York Times apparently criticizing a different book of hers for much the same problem: [18]. -- GRuban ( talk) 18:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not contesting the reliability of the source, my problem is the implied eternal victimization over something that was taken off subsequent editions of the book, and that the author herself has admitted was a bad idea. Still, if there is consensus this should be included, it should definitely be worded differently and given less weight. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 18:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to help, if you can provide the source that the author has disavowed the original. -- GRuban ( talk) 19:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I reached out to her and asked for that, hopefully she'll have one. I do agree some form of the information should be included in the article at this point. The level of secondary coverage is just too high to ignore. Thank you for doing the research on that. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 15:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Douglas Youvan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Doug youvan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

If user:Doug youvan is not Douglas Youvan, then I think this statement on the Frank Layden talk page is liable: "I'm somewhat concerned about your emphasis on Douglas Youvan, given the history of banned users who edited that article (like User:Doug youvan). The fact that you post your question to various User Talk pages despite its irrelevance doesn't help your case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)" Also, I am clearly being stalked. Frank Layden ( talk) 18:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Do you mean libel? Also WP:NLT. Giant Snowman 18:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry about the spelling. I make no threat. I am simply, as a new user, reading the banner on living people and posting here to protect Wikipedia. If you don't think it's a problem then I am only guilty of an abundance of caution. Better to be safe than sorry. Frank Layden ( talk) 19:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, but there is no need for you to worry about Wikipedia and libel. We have people for that. As to your concern, it is not clear what you are highlighting here. Do you think someone is editing a biography about themselves ( WP:COI)? Or are you simply saying that a user's name is too close to a real person's name as to appear that they are impersonating them? -- Dkriegls ( talk to me!) 19:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Could we get some eyes on this? The current (protected) version includes a claim that the subject works as a prostitute, and the only source is in Spanish so I can't verify it. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The prostitute allegation was made by a former employee (see here for an example). But the claim hasn't made the jump from tabloid gossip pieces to more reliable sources. Suggest it be removed from the article per WP:BLPSOURCES - "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." Euryalus ( talk) 01:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd appreciate a second set of eyes on Uniontown Ninja. Any thoughts on the WP:BLP and WP:CRIME considerations and the ongoing legal proceedings about the suspect (who the article doesn't name) would be appreciated. I had previously received opinions at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive185#Uniontown Ninja, but since then, there was a guilty plea and I updated the text.-- GrapedApe ( talk) 00:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, If you wanted to include the person's name, I think there should be some clean up of the story telling first. He was only convicted of the misdemeanors and the felony charges seem to be withdrawn. So the story telling should focus on the misdemeanors he was charged with. I think the first hand account from Guzzo should be removed or change the wording to a more fact based narrative and less story telling use of "quotes" and the like. Also, the quotes from "a man who had previously encountered the Uniontown Ninja" need to go no matter what. In fact, I'm gonna remove them right now. Otherwise, he was convicted, so add that name if you have a reliable source. -- Dkriegls ( talk to me!) 20:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

See discussion at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_11#Category:Murder_victims for rename of murder victims (and child categories) to "homicide victims" as a significant number of cases did not have arrests, charges, or convictions and therefore are violations of WP:BLPCRIME Gaijin42 ( talk) 02:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

This is someone's resume, not an biographical article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.92.79 ( talk) 03:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Deleted as a copyvio from this Deloitte bio page. Some paragraphs were word-for-word from Deloittes, entirety of remainder displayed "substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure" sufficient to trigger WP:COPYVIO. -- Euryalus ( talk) 12:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I am concerned by a lack of neutrality in this article, in particular that the subject has been placed into the Pseudohistory category and this has been displayed prominently in a topic box. Pseudohistory is defined on wikipedia as a perjorative term and this contradicts BLP policy of NPOV and that articles should be written conservatively. It is true that certain RS describe him as a pseudohistorian, and this is reported in the lead of the article and I have no objection to this but there is a great difference between reporting how certain people have described him and elevating this into an objective fact. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 06:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The argument has actually been about the description of his genre in the infobox, not about a category. It originally said Alternative history and Pseudohistory. Skeptic1954 removed pseudohistory but left Alternative history which is a bit ironic as that should never have been there as it is a fiction genre. The editor then added 'History' as a genre, first using a newspaper article which was based on an article from the Daily Mail (clearly not an RS for this), then adding a review they found in JSTOR which refers to him as an "amateur historian". When it was pointed out that "amateur historian" is not the same as "historian" he acknowledged this but said "The noun is the operative word." and "Unfortunatelythephrase "amateur historian" isdividedupbyttheconventionsoftheenglishlanguage" and "That nouns refer to objects is not some aspect of the english language, it is fundamental basic to all Indo-European languages, likely to be on the first page on any grammar book". I don't know how to describe this clear misrepresentation of the source (other than as a clear misrepresentation of course), but this sort of argument is not encouraging. He carried on talking about definitions of adjectives - he obviously is not going to give in on his insistence that we can turn the phrase "amateur historian" into "historian" in the article, which in itself could be seen as possibly a BLP violation.

In any case, his main argument is "It is surely against BLP policy to put subjects into a perjorative category because the policy states that BLP's must be written conservatively and with NPOV" and we need to concentrate on that. I'd argue that this is a misinterpretation of policy. I will also note that despite the fact that 4 editors disagree with him, he says he is not arguing against consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller ( talk • contribs) 09:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

'genre' or 'category' is not important to this argument. I have not edited against the majority, there is in fact no consensus on this because I disagree with other editors. The quotation from me above with words merged was in reply to an editor stating "I think one has to be careful with dividing up phrases like this" 'this' referring to 'amateur historian' which is divided up by the convention of the english language that adjectives and nouns are separated. I have simply said that if some RSs state that he is a pseudohistorian there is also an RS stating that he is a historian, and so there should either be both genres or neither. Might I add that what I see on this page is a phenomenon I find widespread in wikipedia, that a page is taken over by a group of editors with a strong view, that a whole load of rules are used to violate the major pillar of wikipedia NPOV and I rather suspect that it is a factor in the decline in the number of english Wikipedia editors which is a cause of concern to the Wikipedia Foundation. I am rather perturbed to find two administrators amongst the group in question on this page. I hope that those monitoring the decline in editor numbers will read this. Please note the views of A1Candidate expressed on this talk page at the same time, though not in this particular question. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 09:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

In cases of conflict, Wikipedia represents viewpoints in proportion to their standing and prominence in mainstream reliable sources. It is clear that the mainstream reliable sources in this matter consider his work to be pseudohistory. It is also outstandingly clear that the "conflict" in this case is extraordinarily limited, and that Menzies' claims are a fringe theory deserving of little or no credence in the encyclopedia. While "pseudohistory" is a pejorative term, it is also, in the view of the overwhelming majority of reliable sources, an accurate term. It is not a violation of BLP to classify someone in a category which reflects the mainstream consensus about that person's work. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 09:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

How can one possibly say 'in the overwhelming majority' of reliable sources? Some quite clearly choose to categorise his work as such but they may not constitute any sort of majority. I think a sure way to reduce wikipedia's appeal is to denigrate fringe theories unnecessarily, Wiki's 'mainstream' may be the widest visible channel but may only carry a small proportion of water in the valley in question Sceptic1954 ( talk) 10:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

( edit conflict):::You have foundno reliable sources calling him a historian, the review calls him an "amateur historian". I can't see how with 4 people disagreeing with you on this issue and no one agreeing with you on this specific issue you can claim you have not edited against the majority. It also appears that you wish to change the way we deal with mainstream and fringe material. Dougweller ( talk) 10:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The actual problem is that this biography, at its current state, reads like an essay written by his critics. Criticism is always welcome, but I dont think Gavin Menizies' critics should be given more weight than the person himself. Its his biography after all. See Talk:Gavin_Menzies#Undue_weight

- A1candidate ( talk) 10:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

as stated an 'amateur historian' is a 'historian': 'amateur' is an adjective and qualifies the noun 'historian'. Even if there were one hundred wikipedia editors trying to turn one of the most elementary rules of english grammar on its head it wouldn't make them right and me wrong. I found one RS for the subject being a historian. I am discussing not editing: I made my changes before I encountered the disgreements from more than one person. I do not know how precisely how the people you refer to as 'we' deal with mainstream and fringe material, I can't believe there is anything there which says you have to give Menzies a genre at all, but I have read the BLP policy and know that NPOV is one of the pillars. I hope that those monitoring why editors leave wikipedia will take particular note because there is another editor involved who appears to have similar views to mine. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 11:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It's usually a bad sign when a wikipedia editor starts going on about "elementary rules of english grammar". Perhaps Sceptic1954 might consider the phrase "ersatz historian", in which "ersatz" is clearly an adjective modifying "historian". If someone had called Menzies an "ersatz historian", could we call him a historian based upon that? --Akhilleus ( talk) 11:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

As for the undue weight issue, I think we have a number of articles where there is more information about an author's books than details about the personal life of the author. This author might not have had an article at all if he hadn't published these books. In any case, articles on 2 of his books were merged into this one, and as he continues to publish books they are added to his article. So of course there is more about his books than about the details of his life, and it is hardly surprising that most of the material about his books is criticism. Dougweller ( talk) 12:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. scepticism is as much a part of the historical process as it is the scientific process. If you make a claim, you have to have the evidence. If you make an extraordinary claim, you need extraordinary evidence. If you make a claim that contradicts much of the experts understanding in the area, you need to not only produce very strong evidence in your own favour, you also need a pretty good explanation for how existing evidence is wrong or misinterpreted. Unfortunately people persist in making unsupported extraordinary claims. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 12:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

This page is locked, so I am unable to edit, but there is a paragraph on this page which is inaccurate and potentially libelous. The paragraph is one stating that individuals made a variety of gifts. The paragraph should be removed to avoid spreading harmful and incorrect information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by THE ANCHORAGE ( talk • contribs) 11:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Nina Rosenwald is semi-protected, the talk page is not and this has not been raised there. The article has been heavily discussed and no one has suggested that this information, if it's the paragraph I'm thinking about, is incorrect. We need more details to show why you think it is incorrect. Dougweller ( talk) 11:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Fielding McConkie (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I must bring this to your attention, there is a rumour circulating that this individual has past away. Numerous editors are editing in and out of his article but it seems on the surface at least there is no official confirmation of his death.

Administrative intervention is needed until we reach a conclusion on this issue. TF92 ( talk) 12:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

There does not appear to be any mass rush to insert a death notice in this article. One IP editor made such an insert on 10/11, it was reverted on 10/12, and no other editor has done so since. There are other edits taking place, but they appear constructive. It does not appear that any effort has been made to contact the IP, either to warn them against unsourced edits or to inquire as to the source of the info they inserted. I encourage you to do so via their Talk page. 17:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Obit published. [19] The IP (which returns to BYU, the school where Prof. McConkie taught) knew what it was talking about. Dwpaul ( talk) 15:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Dwpaul ( talk) 15:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

About Us TendersInfo through its professional team ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navalur Shoaib Ahmed ( talk • contribs) 13:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

 Note Additional content removed due to copyright violation. Dwpaul ( talk) 23:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the editor has misunderstood the purpose of this Noticeboard. They are encouraged to read the information appearing in the header of this page and at WP:Biographies of living persons.

Resolved

 – This was also dealt with in an AfC at User:Navalur_Shoaib Ahmed/Navalur Shoaib Ahmed, in which the proposed article (containing roughly the same information) was declined. Dwpaul ( talk) 19:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The above text is a direct copy of the Tenders Info About Us page[ http://www.tendersinfo.com/about.php}. The page states " Copyright © 2013 Euclid Infotech (P). Ltd, ", so this text should probably be deleted as a copyright violation. RolandR ( talk) 22:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Done, here and at the declined AfC. Dwpaul ( talk) 23:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

An editor keeps inserting unsourced claims that Mr Tuppen is one of the main protagonists of "the substantial damage caused to the pub sector in the UK caused by abuse of the beer tie." Because the comments are unsourced it is not clear what abuse Mr Tuppen is guilty of. As such the comments are probably libelous. I have not removed them a third time because of the 3RR rule. Dormskirk ( talk) 18:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It appears that in an earlier revision [20] the editor supplied a source for the criticism, then removed the citation. Unclear to me whether the London Evening Standard is considered a RS, and the citation appears to be an OpEd piece rather than hard news. But it bears looking at, since the editor seems rather determined to include this criticism in the BLP. If the source is RS and determined not OpEd, the controversy should probably be referenced somehow. Another editor did revert the latest inclusion which was unsourced. Dwpaul ( talk) 19:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

A person in Southern California repeatedly posts untrue and libelous information on this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay.wind ( talk • contribs) 06:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

There was significant unsourced/poorly-sourced material from the article that needed to be removed as violative of content policies, but you also removed large sections of well-sourced material discussing controversial moments in McCaffrey's career — which I have replaced. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 07:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The above user has stated an intention to take control of the page and revert any edits made to it, and has issued threats in edit summaries. Jay.wind, you do not have the right to do any such thing. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 07:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

nice article with rather too many references to CAMERA, and Stand4Facts ( StandWithUs). is this an attack page, or merely undue? Duckduckgo ( talk) 20:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what I'd label this article but it's not a balanced BLP. The purpose of a BLP is to summarize notable events in a person's life. They are not a place to elaborate on the subject's personal or political views and their corresponding criticisms. The Views section, which at present comprises half the article, should be cut back to a single paragraph in my opinion. Way too much detail, editorial adjectives and back and forth quotes from various people and news editorials. It needs a lot of cleaning up before it can be considered a neutral article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Out of the 43 citations in the article 32 of them cite articles written by the subject of the article. This is not appropriate and I've added a Primary Source tag.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The article is protected anyway, but libellous rumours are circulating that he has died. Please be on the lookout. TF92 ( talk) 21:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

As an active reviewer, this is good info for me. Thanks for the notice.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

This is clearly fake. I have seen the same site claim (in two separate articles) that both he and Eddie Murphy died in the same manner, in the same place, on the same day. In fact other than the names the two articles are exact word for word. In short, not a chance.-- 174.95.109.219 ( talk) 02:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

See this link: “Adam Sandler dead 2013” : Actor killed by internet death hoax. -- Auric talk 16:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Bilal Powell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bilal powell was NOT named after the house party character. He was named by his uncle This seems to be out in here as a joke and is ridiculous and disrespectful to Bilal Powell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmspri03 ( talk • contribs) 02:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I see you've removed this yourself. And yes, it is clearly incorrect, not least because Powell was born in 1988, and House Party didn't come out until 1990. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Strong bias in article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.243.195 ( talk) 04:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The request is vague so could you please give some specific examples of what content in the article that you think is biased and why?-- 174.95.109.219 ( talk) 04:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it perhaps the strongly-positive overall tone, especially in sections such as Juan_Orlando_Hernández#Aspirations?? In any event, it needs both better sourcing and copyediting. As it is, it reads like it was written by a member of his political party. -- Eggishorn ( talk) 05:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello.

The wikipedia page Swami Nithyananda violates wikipedia's rules of neutral point of view, provides no references and also violates the following wikipedia rules. WP:NOR WP:SPS WP:SOURCES Most of the references in the biography and meditation sections come from self published website violating WP:SPS and WP:SOURCES

I had done my best to make the article neutral, But all my edits have been reverted despite following wikipedia's rules.

Please help to restore the article to wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookinhotbra ( talk • contribs) 05:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If an individual was involved in a court case, are their any guidelines concerning whether it should be mentioned in their article? The subject might consider it to be contentious, and we might only have the court ruling as a primary (but very reliable) source? -- Iantresman ( talk) 16:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

We need to wait for coverage in secondary sources. From WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." The court ruling alone cannot be used. — C.Fred ( talk) 16:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

( edit conflict) You should consult both WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Giant Snowman 16:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, just what I was looking for. I can understand why trial transcripts should not be used, as witness opinions are unreliable. But why would we exclude, for example, a ruling by the judge? Wouldn't an attribution or direct quote resolve this issue of misuse? Why would you rely on the interpretation of a secondary source? -- Iantresman ( talk) 19:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Risk of WP:SYNTHESIS. Giant Snowman 19:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

But can remove all risk by stating the facts accurately. If a person says they are an expert in biology, but the judge's ruling says "the Court finds that the defendant lacks sufficient qualifications in this area", and we write, Bob states he is an expert in biology, whereas Judge Jones stated in (Plaintiff vs Defendant) that "the Court finds that the defendant lacks sufficient qualifications in this area", we have stated the facts exactly as they are given. No? -- Iantresman ( talk) 21:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

By writing such a thing at all, you are implying that the Judge's ruling is significant, which you have not proven. Someguy1221 ( talk) 22:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE says nothing about primary vs secondary sources, it just talks about reliable sources. We often use people's own biographies as primary sources for material. Surely a judge is more reliable, and more significant? -- Iantresman ( talk) 00:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is a judge more significant? Anyone can take any matter to court for any reason, and a judge will inevitably render an opinion. The fact that such a thing happened is insignificant. Someguy1221 ( talk) 05:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If the case has not been covered by any independent media, that suggests the case is not encyclopedically notable as part of a person's biography. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 19:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought notability applied to the existence of an article, not for individual facts. If we have an article on Jack the Ripper, and only court papers say he had "brown eyes", we wouldn't exclude it because there are no secondary sources describing the colour of his eyes? -- Iantresman ( talk) 21:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Jack the Ripper is not a living person, so that would be a different matter. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 22:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I meant a living example. - Iantresman ( talk) 00:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Which runs headlong into WP:BLPPRIMARY. A significant reason for the existence of BLPPRIMARY is that there is all sorts of stuff in public records which has absolutely no place in an encyclopedia. Requiring that such information be filtered through a secondary source means that someone else has independently reviewed the given public records and decided that some information in those records merits discussion and republication to a broader public audience. Wikipedia should never, ever, EVER be the first place some particular fact is published. That is not our role as an encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 00:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Adam Setliff (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP added some dumb defamatory material, which was reverted. Just in case that comes back and I miss it, a few eyes would be helpful. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 20:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Dan McCullough does not work at the Tim Hortons on Hanwell Road, slaying all the tail he can find. Please remove that information immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.202.44.29 ( talk) 11:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism now removed. RolandR ( talk) 11:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Fernando Fischmann (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Editors at Wikipedia,

I am posting this report relating to the bio article on /info/en/?search=Fernando_Fischmann in relation to the disclosure of private and family information on said article. The article currently contains Fischmann's full name, the names and information on his grandparents, parents and sister, the fact that he comes from a family of immigrants, and information on a business his family worked in.

To comply with Wikipedia's policy on Bios of Living Persons and to protect Fischmann's family's privacy and following the advice of other Wikipedia editors, I am requesting that the article be renamed to "Crystal Lagoons" and rearranged omitting Fischmann's family details and his middle name, and mother's surname. I have the following rationale to base up this request: Fischmann is not really a public figure, he is notable only for founding Crystal Lagoons Corp and for his professional work as a biochemist and real estate developer. The information on his family is unrelated to his work and calls undue attention on private family affairs (including the fact he comes from a family of inmigrants). It is standard encyclopedic practice to only include very basic biographical information on persons notable for their professional work. The information on his family could well be replaced by his date of birth, as well as ommiting his middle name and mother's surname.

The company Crystal Lagoons is notable by itself as it has developed a new technology, has been awarded a World Guinness Record and is about to obtain more records, has international patents, and operates in 50 countries. I think that this merits shifting the center of the article from Fischmann to Crystal Lagoons.

I´ll be looking forward to your response. Many thanks for your help.

User:Ignaciorf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignaciorf ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I've no opinion on whether the article should be about the person or the company, but I don't see any personal information in the article that is cause for concern. The names of the relatives were printed in newspapers, after all. But I also don't have a problem with just removing the names as they really don't add much to the article. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 19:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the English Wikipedia article started as a translation of the article [21] in the Spanish Wikipedia. However, based on machine translation, the Spanish article appears to focus on the subject's company and business accomplishments, and includes little of the biographical information and information on the subject's family that now appears in the English article. This information appears to have been added after translation. Dwpaul ( talk) 01:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Alison McGovern (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some funky editing related to the subject's spouse, apparently intended to cast doubt on his paternity (!) that was reported to OTRS ( ticket:2013101510000562). Not sure if that was the intention, and the source was iffy to begin with, but just in case I trimmed the paragraph and used a primary source instead. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 18:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello

In this writers biography, it gives a list of his films.

The first film is the Comic (1985) , but when you click on this link, it wrongly directs to a 1969 comedy film of the same name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.134.201 ( talk) 20:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, by changing it to a redlink to The Comic (1985). 88.104.19.237 ( talk) 23:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Rebecca Housel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:EmpressMatilda ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In 2009, [22] User:EmpressMatilda created the Rebecca Housel article, which is about herself. Since then, she mostly has had a free hand in improving the article and not so much feedback on how Wikipedia works. A recent disagreement between Nightscream and EmpressMatilda over which image to use in the infobox brought attention to the article via EmpressMatilda post at the help desk. A variety of editors have weighed in on the article talk page. [23] I opened a COIN thread to handle the conflict issues and give her feedback. [24] Given the current tension, it would help if you guys focused on the article content/BLP issues. Please look over the article and revise as needed. Thanks. -- Jreferee ( talk) 15:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Well if she wrote the article herself I doubt there are too many BLP issues... I couldn't see anything outright, is there a specific problem you feel needs to be addressed (beyond the obvious COI/OWN/etc issues). § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 16:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Sonia Nassery Cole (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Black Tulip (2010 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A new SPA is adding attacking material to the Cole the film articles. The film article is a lousy article, even before the changes. Neither article has many page watchers, so they get little attention. I have reverted a few times already and warned the user, but it doesn't seem to daunt them.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Should List of people who escaped from prison contain BLP entries where the sources are at the article level, but not in the list? The list at first even included redlinks [25], which I removed, but my later removal of unsourced but linked entries got reversed [26]. Some guidance / outside opinions are welcome. Fram ( talk) 06:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Citing sources seems to say they need sourcing "where they appear", i.e. in the list. That seems to make sense, as a list like this is basically just an article. It also says "they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations" Begoon  ^talk 07:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That's basically what I thought. 08:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I am the "Elle Jauffret" mentioned in the article and I would like the page referring to my name/life to be deleted, especially since it contains numerous errors. I would like the page to be deleted, please. My contact address: <redacted>Thank you for your help, Sincerely, Elle Jauffret — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElleWriter ( talk • contribs) 20:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

We do not delete articles on persons who meet our standards of notability just because the subject is unhappy with the content. We are eager, of course, to improve articles and remove inaccuracies. Please use the talkpage ( Talk:Elle Jauffret) to suggest improvements to the article, offering reliable references to back up the proposed changes. -- Orange Mike | Talk 21:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Considering the works by Ms. Jaufrett are relatively minor, and also taking into account her desire to see the article deleted, I have nominated the article for deletion. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 21:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

she is the first Iranian women elected as Chairperson in Tourism Commission TCCIMA. 

• Anthony Portantino (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some seriously contentious POV editing on this bio about a California politician that I just took the hatchet to, and issued a warning to the clever author. Reported through OTRS as well. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 19:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess this would have been better posted here.. sorry for any confusion pls see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Privacy of personal information -- Moxy ( talk)

Jovan Deretić User Bokisanisa has created and added some content to this page, but it is so far unsourced. I have placed BLPPROD tags on the page but Bokisanisa has removed them. After re-placing them I have placed messages on their talk page asking them not to remove maintenance tags. I have now also placed a similar message on the article's talk page. To avoid 3RR, I will not re-place those if they are again removed, but others may want to keep an eye on this page. Eggishorn ( talk) 15:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Update: An IP User 79.101.191.209 is also making similar edits. Eggishorn ( talk) 15:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

After waiting 24 hours and seeing that there is still no attempt at providing sources, I reattached the BLP Prod notice [ [27]] and notified the article creator [ [28]]. The BLP PROD tag was [ removed by] IP User 79.101.191.209 [ [29]]. I notified the IP user [ [30]] about removing BLP PROD tags. Talk page notices do not seem to be altering this editor's behavior (assuming IP 79.101.191.209 is also Bokisanisa). -- Eggishorn ( talk) 16:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Eggishorn for your thoroughness and for bringing this issue to our attention. I've removed all of the content and sources in the article as all were non-compliant with WP policies. I've placed a message on the talk pages of the three SPA's (one IP, two accounts) asking them to come to the talk page. Let's see what they do now. If they undo my edits and remove the BLP and Notability tags and refuse to discuss on the talk page, then we'll need to request page protection. Feel free to ping me on my user page if I forget to follow up on this. Thanks again.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If anyone with BLP experience can look at the source I added on the talk page I'd appreciate the help. This looks to me like exactly the type of information that rescues the article subject from non-notability but it is also a problematic source. BLP of persons notable for mostly pseudo-historical or pseudo-scientific reasons are an area I have no experience in. -- Eggishorn ( talk) 17:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Since nobody has opposed it, I will add this information to the article. I will wait a couple of days, though, in case anyone has objections. -- Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it no longer allowed to include the term "UK" in BLPs about British subjects? If there was a discussion about it, could someone link me to it? Thanks, Bretonbanquet ( talk) 19:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be? What articles have you seen it on? Giant Snowman 19:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it seems that it's being removed systematically in this way [31] and I was wondering what the directive was. I don't want to waste time arguing about it and risk causing bad feeling with other editors until I know what the official line is. I did ask an admin a while back but he didn't really know. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 19:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks more like some unilateral "I must make a point" editing. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 19:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's no policy objecting to "UK" in such occasions - I see no reason why we would have a problem with it. See WP:UKNATIONALS for discussion of the issues (albeit in a slightly different context). Kahastok talk 19:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I see no problems with the edit in question. We do not need to get that specific - 'England' or 'Scotland' etc. will suffice. Giant Snowman 19:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I was rather looking for a guideline of some sort, otherwise some British BLPs often have no reference whatsoever to the country of citizenship of the subject, e.g. Frank Thornton, the UK being the only country in the world whose name is not to be mentioned. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 20:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, apparently just "Scotland" doesn't suffice for this editor, [32] it's just England that gets the "UK" removal treatment. All of this editor's edits are the same, by the way. Either it's supported by a guideline or it isn't, which is what I'm trying to get at. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 20:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe the best we've got is WP:UKNATIONALS, an essay, and particularly this bit, which you could make the editor aware of. The section "Do not enforce uniformity" seems relevant. Kahastok talk 20:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

There is potentially a problem with systematically removing the UK from articles though. Kahastok talk 20:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I appreciate it. I will probably have a word on the editor's talk page and see what he says. A few times is no problem, but hundreds and hundreds of times with no guideline to back it up is surely not ideal. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 20:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

As a Brit myself, I'd say that describing someone's place of birth as 'London, England, UK' looks odd. It is clearly redundant, and looks pointy to include it in the first place. I'd be surprised if e.g. the U.S. mainstream media made a habit of referring to 'London, England, UK', and I see no reason why Wikipedia should. I've noticed a spate of IPs adding 'UK' without explanation, and I'd suggest that before complaining about it being removed, checking the history might be worthwhile. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. @Bretonbanquet: the UK isn't 'a country'. It is a kingdom made up of several countries... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

What I said was "country of citizenship", the actual sovereign nation. There are no English or Scottish citizens. "London" shouldn't have any country following it anyway, like other massive world cities. I'm not sure "New York, USA" is common either. I'd check the history, but checking the hundreds and hundreds of articles this editor has changed would be time-consuming. Part of the problem with removing (or adding) "UK" systematically is that it patently has political overtones. There is no guideline, so what's to stop edit wars? Bretonbanquet ( talk) 21:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a whole article about the terminology of the British Isles which attempts to explain the complexities of what is what. I say attempts because it takes well over 7000 words to cover the topic and then there are several related pages that go into more detail. I find it complicated, and I've lived here all my life! It is not incorrect to refer to London, England, UK, but it is not exactly common usage. Both England and the UK are well-known entities, and it is neater to have just the one. But of course, there are political considerations too.. Shritwod ( talk) 22:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, it certainly is an insanely complicated and touchy topic when you go in depth. It's only when I find myself trying to explain it to non-Brits that I realise how hard it must be to understand. It doesn't really bother me which system is used in an article, but changing one to the other seems pointy. It's the political considerations that concern me. If someone is removing (or adding) "UK" to English / Scottish / Welsh places systematically for nationalist reasons, that's not healthy. Doing it en masse to Irish-related articles is strictly forbidden, as I understand it. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 22:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This kinda reminds me of when I was a kid and I used to write letters to people in 'England, UK, Europe, the World, the Universe'. Giant Snowman 08:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Note this was also raised at ANI at the same time, why is Bretonbanquet ( talk · contribs) FORUMSHOPPING? Giant Snowman 11:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

That first comment suggests you don't take potentially nationalist or politically-motivated editing seriously. I've answered your second comment elsewhere, no sense in repeating it here. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 19:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Who's not AGFing now? It's to show that we simply don't need that level of detail in infoboxes, otherwise it gets a bit ridiculous. Giant Snowman 21:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

If I wasn't AGFing, I'd have accused him on his talk page or reverted him, instead of gauging opinion elsewhere first. It isn't so much the content of the edit, although as Peter James has said below, it's probably unnecessary and has no consensus or guideline – it's more about the extent of it and the singling out of English places and leaving Scottish (for example) with the "UK" in place in the same article. Even AGFing, I don't see how that can not be construed as political and questionable. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 21:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you mean I wasn't AGFing with your comment above? I wasn't having a pop at you, I understand your point about excess detail, although as I say, there's no consensus and no guideline to cover it. It's one editor's opinion against another. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 21:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

( edit conflict)Maybe the editor was only looking for "England, UK" and not anything else. Peter James ( talk) 21:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I might think that too, but he's made nearly 700 edits since 17 July, all of them exactly the same, barring a few posts in his sandbox or on his talk page. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 21:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to place it here, I was looking for England, UK and not Scoptland/Wales, so I wasn't actively 'ignoring' them. Narrow Feint ( talk) 11:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:UKNATIONALS is about a person's nationality, not about place names mentioned in infoboxes (place of birth: London, England can be combined with nationality: British if necessary), and the UK isn't the only sovereign state (there's also Kingdom of the Netherlands) for which the constituent countries seem to be preferred. The changes don't look like they were done for nationalist reasons, but "London, England, UK" is not wrong (it's what IMDB uses), so they are probably unnecessary, at least not worth an edit specifically for the purpose (or reverting) unless someone can point to relevant consensus (not just that of the UK geography WikiProject). Peter James ( talk) 20:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate discussions

Discussion has been started on two pages: this and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive814#"UK" in articles about British subjects. I suggest merging them and moving to somewhere more suitable, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography or Template:Infobox person. Peter James ( talk) 21:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

My fault, apologies again. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 21:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

So, it's been noted that there are duplicate discussions but both discussions have stopped. I think there should be some resolution to this. I think Bretonbanquet has a point, if UK is only removed from England locations but not Scotland or Wales, this is a strange inconsistency. It might not bothered English Editors/Admins not to have UK after the location but the larger issue is that this isn't a decision determined by consensus but by one Editor. If this selective, wide-spread editing was done on another area, it would be nipped in the bud and I'm puzzle by the reluctance to actually address Brentonbanquet's concern.

Personally, I don't care whether there is UK in a location or it is removed but if it is removed, it should be removed from all countries that make up the UK, not just one. This does seem to be some pointy, political statement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

<edit conflict>

P.S. This isn't a move to forum-shop but maybe this conversation should actually be occurring at Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board. Just a suggestion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It probably shouldn't be being removed en masse at all. Where a change is needed, it's probably going to be a one-off thing and with good reason. In a lot of cases it doesn't matter, but if it doesn't matter there's no reason to change them. Removing them from England and not Scotland or Wales is also troubling.

FWIW, the fact that WP:UKNATIONALS doesn't apply to this specific circumstance but to a similar one does not mean that it is not a useful guide for the general principle. It's not ideal, but it is probably the best we have. Kahastok talk 17:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

There's something I hadn't seen at first: unlike in geography articles where the guidelines recommend against "UK", inclusion of "UK" is currently supported by the template's documentation ( Template:Infobox person#Parameters). Peter James ( talk) 20:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

WPISNOTAPOSTALENVELOPE, perhaps. Please, just make it neat and short, with only the items necessary to convey the location. If the city is well-known, "UK" is only required if there's a chance it might be confused with another of the same name, like London, Ontario. Tony (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

What have you decided?

So, what is the answer? Narrow Feint ( talk) 08:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the answer is there in the documentation of the parameters of the infobox. I would say that, wouldn't I, but there's no guideline. If you want to change the infobox parameters then a discussion there would be required. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 22:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of bad behavior on this article and its talk page. It concerns lots of editors and is being argued about on both the talk page and in an ANI thread. However, I'm here about just one set of edits, by myself and one other editor, today. I've been reverted twice and, while trying to bring the lede of the BLP of a living fringe theorist into some version of compliance with WP:BLP might give me license to go through a third iteration, coming here is the better course.

An editor insists that Sheldrake's theory of morphic resonance not be called a theory. That's what Sheldrake calls it in his book, referenced on the page. That's what at least five critics call it, whilst debunking it. But I keep getting reverted, despite making a bunch of attempts to provide the appropriate refs and some talk page back-and-forth. (Our tone is one of exasperation, because there have been earlier skirmishes and the assumption of good faith is pretty well strained on both sides. But it never merited an appeal for noticeboard assistance, in my view, until now.)

First the diffs, then the accompanying talk page discussion

My first try
I'm reverted
my second try, fixing my formatting error and adding a fifth ref
I'm reverted again

Here's the corresponding talk page discussion. I'll now alert the other editor and then try to STFU. David in DC ( talk) 21:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not a scientific theory, partly because it's not scientific, partly because it's extremely vague to the point that it is whatever Sheldrake says it is, and partly because nobody in academia seems to think it has any merit. Just because some people are inaccurate in their language doesn't mean Wikipedia should be. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 22:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

to claim that we must call it a "theory" because the creator called it a "theory" is ridiculous. the creators work can only be used to support content that is not unduly self promoting. to elevate this hogwash a "theory" is gratuitously self serving. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm a dolt. Looking at a cached page led me to think I'd been reverted a second time. I haven't been. my second edit stands. I apologize to all concerned. I'll go apologize specifically now. Then impose a one-week self-block David in DC ( talk) 22:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Examples of Disruptive Behavior, NPOV on page is being violated

I concur with David in DC regarding horrible behavior and a general lack of the spirit of WP on the page. Many editors have a skeptical agenda and only appear interested in biasing the article to the skeptical POV, which winds up framing the BLP in quite a derogatory manner, often in very extreme examples where a valid academic title is denied, an invalid academic is applied, quoting sources that are opinions and using them as facts, etc etc. I am personally appalled by the general lack of concern for BLP. Specifically though, although Dave is correct regarding the ridiculous arguments, the problem with the word 'theory' is more about the reverting of 'hypothesis' back to the word 'proposal' in regarding sheldrakes idea, which Dave tried to clean up with using references to skeptics that editors would approve of to revert it away from a diminishing Sheldrakes bio any more by skeptic editors. There is definitely a reasoned argument as to why we should not refer to an hypothesis as a theory, and I support that. However there is no valid argument to refer to a hypothesis as a 'proposal' or 'idea' because an editor doing personal research decides to claim that sheldrake is not making an educated hypothesis. No references are given for making this change from 'hypothesis' to 'proposal' and although there was clearly no consensus for the change, and many editors spoke out against the change to 'proposal', when a revert was made back to 'hypothesis' it was just reverted back to proposal without discussion. When presented with clearly reasoned arguments and sources to the contrary, the skeptical position doesn't change. These editors are controlling the page and refusing reasonable consensus.

Here is the discussion where hypothesis was changed to proposal and where there is clearly no consensus for the change.

Here is the discussion where reverts were questioned.

Here is another thread challenging hypothesis again, this time with a new bizarre twist, prominent scientists and academic journals skeptics don't like don't count.

Here is the section that addresses the 'theory' issue again.

This editor takes BLP and NPOV very seriously, and I believe that if the rational wikipedia community was aware of the abuse of these principles happening on the sheldrake page, they would be doing something similar to what I am doing now. This article is now getting blogged about due to the controversy. WP does not need to deal with a libelous or claim of libelous situation and all of us are responsible to protecting WP here. The Tumbleman ( talk) 23:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The thinly veiled legal threat language doesn't help point the way forward. There is no requirement in Wikipedia WP:BLP policy that all biographies of living persons have to consist mostly of praise for or agreement with the point of view of the subject of the article. What is required by that policy is that criticism not be gratuitous and that controversial statements--pro or con--be reliably sourced. So let's focus on the key issue here: what are the best reliable sources on the life of Rupert Sheldrake and his point of view on various issues and his activities? Who is writing about him in professionally edited, published sources of good reliability? Once we know what the sources say, it should be clear enough how to edit the article. (I have just opened a new section on the article talk page inviting all editors to suggest reliable sources for the improvement of the article.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 23:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own language warning of potential libel from violations of BLP are no less thinly veiled than my own, it's why we have to be very careful with a BLP page. And there is not one editor here who is complaining here about 'praise or agreement' regarding Sheldrake's research. We already have the sources, we already want to make sure both sides of the issue have a voice and everything is in a neutral context. the issue is not how to edit a BLP, it's that edit warring from agenda based editors is disruptive of consensus, NPOV, and BLP and a proper edit is being prevented. The Tumbleman ( talk) 01:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

What reliable sources do you suggest to help improve the article? -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 21:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

A reason for arguing

There are 77 references, with a quick count, I see that 16 are for Sheldrake's writing, at least one is pro Sheldrake and 60 are anti Sheldrake in some way. Interestingly, four of the negative one are the same reference with different authors (45-48). That means some 78% of the references are negative.

If the Sheldrake articles are discounter, which is reasonable since they are there so that editors can complain about them, then there is a 60 to 1 ratio, 98% of which are negative.

Please see Note A which sports 6 negative statements such as "reject morphic resonance" (5 references), "reject as pseudoscience" (5 references) and "impact on the public's understanding of science" (4 references). To support these, there are 23 references, but some are repeated so that there are actually only 15 references. The net effect is that the statement that "Scientists who have specifically examined the idea of morphic resonance have called it pseudoscience..." appears to be overwhelmingly supported. A quick review of some of these references show the expression of opinion with little reference to the actual mechanics of the hypothesis--something necessary to have an informed opinion.

At the same time, there are no references in the article from Sheldrake's peer group in the parapsychological community. The hypothesis simply cannot be considered without also considering related concepts such as psi and intentionality--both of which are supported by very good science. All of the related publications are not allowed because they are considered unreliable sources.

My point is that the article is absolutely biased and there is no rational for having it that way. Wikipedia rules are sufficiently general that a determined group of editors can collectively determine how they are applied. For instance what is a reliable source is decided here based on whether or not the subject is accepted by mainstream science and not on the quality of the science, peer review or academic credentials . That is the very definition of censorship of new ideas.

As it stands now, Wikipedia is incapable of hosting a balanced article about Rupert Sheldrake and the article should be deleted. It is fine to address the concepts, but the person should either be treated in terms of basic biographical facts or not at all. Rupert Sheldrake is highly respected in the parapsychological community, and as it stands now, the article has become a lightning rod for negative comment on Wikipedia in general. Tom Butler ( talk) 18:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I concur. The article is written as an exercise in discrediting and debunking Sheldrake. Not even the article on the Nazis is written from such a negative POV, yet its style is still NPOV. Sheldrake's article is primarily about an individual, and what he has done. It the duty of the article to tell people what he has written, and where. That includes the spectrum of views, from parapsychology to "mainstream" scientists. Where necessary, simple use of the English language provides weight and balance. Of course we do no exclude criticism, and we don't pretend that any of Sheldrake's work is more credible than the sources suggest. We are not placing Sheldrake's views into any mainstream article, so WP:BLP and WP:DUE (2nd paragraph) apply. -- Iantresman ( talk) 20:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow, Tom Butler ( talk · contribs) and Iantresman ( talk · contribs), you really have got it backwards, haven't you? At least unlike Tumbleman ( talk · contribs) and his socks, you've acknowledged the plentiful references that exist speaking against Sheldrake and aren't ignoring them. However, WP:FRINGE applies because of this. Regarding reviews from friendly sources, I would be in favour of including these, I added two reviews of Sheldrake's book myself. However, sufficient context needs to be provided to them per WP:FRINGE. If as you suggest, most of the friendly reviews are from authors and "psi researchers", there is an inherent problem of credibility there because they will themselves make extraordinary claims. In my experience such people have a lack of understanding of scientific scepticism and their consensus is therefore worthless. It's a bit like arguing about the nature of the holy trinity, while relying entirely on a group of experts - those experts being Roman Catholic cardinals. You won't find such people being taken seriously by the scientific community, even if they take themselves seriously. We don't need to pretend that any of Sheldrake's work is more credible than the sources suggest. We probably need to work in Brian Josephson] somewhere but he has somewhat of a reputation for Nobel disease as well [33]. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 21:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

No, WP:FRINGE is a guideline to help us achieve WP:DUE, a non-negotiable policy. This is not backwards. (1) We can't use your experience, or mine, to judge the worth of qualified scientists who chose to investigate "psi research". (2) The suggestion that an understanding of "scientific scepticism" determines the worth of consensus, even if we could assess that level of understanding among so many people, is probably speculative at best. (3) "inherent credibility" is not based on "extraordinary claims". (4) Of course science takes seriously religious people, if they are suitably qualified. Belgian priest Georges Lemaître comes to mind. (5) Parapsychology researchers are typically pyschologist with Ph.Ds affiliated to universities who disagree with your characterisation. (5) Personally, I don't "believe" in the paranormal, but I recognise that people from psychologists to physicists have conducted studies, with various results. -- Iantresman ( talk) 00:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Barney, you border on insolence! Beyond that, all you have accomplished is further reinforce the unlikelihood that the article will ever meet Wikipedia standards, nor will it ever be stable as long as there is a 60 to 1 ratio in pro and con references and editors like you who think that is okay. Tom Butler ( talk) 00:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Tell us Tom Butler what ratio would satisfy you? -- Roxy the dog ( quack quack) 01:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

In an article about a minority view, balance has little to do with just the ratio of references for and against. NPOV is about how we describe those views (per WP:DUE). The simple use of adjectives lets us apply the appropriate weight to the spectrum of views, without misleading readers. Otherwise every article on every minority view, would have to contain material predominantly about the alternative majority view. When we write an article about "x", the article is predominantly about "x", with "appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint" WP:DUE. -- Iantresman ( talk) 09:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The article meets Wikipedia standards per WP:FRINGE - if you have a problem with that go to that talk page. I see no point in repeating arguments. Meanwhile, what do you propose? Given numerous sources available from mainstream scientists denouncing Sheldrake's attempts at science, and very few supporting him. Do you want to remove negative sources? Or do you want to add positive sources? If you want to add positive sources, please present these and we will try to incorporate them into the article. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 15:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles strive towards the WP:NPOV policy, not the WP:FRINGE guideline. I've not objected to the vast majority of critical sources (the one exception being a self-published book). On the other hand, a small group of editors have consistently rejected several peer-reviewed academic sources based on nothing but their opinion. -- Iantresman ( talk) 15:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Try to think beyond this incessant "wiki rules say". There is no doubt to the rational observer that the rejection of peer reviewed academic journals is only possible because of an arbitrary line drawn for what is and is not acceptable in Wikipedia. I am not arguing that point here, however ... and I think you all know it. At the risk of having every skeptic in Wikipedia run over and trash the article, I will say that the Dean Radin article is about right for an article about a still living person of little notability in mainstream standards.

It is important to keep in mind that terms about Sheldrake like "libelous" and "defamation of character" are floating around the Internet now. Rupert Sheldrake is an article about a still living person with little notability according to mainstream standards. What is and is not defamation of character is not a scientific measure; it is appearances. Right now, the appearance is that people are piling on with unnecessary skepticism. Keep in mind that surveys consistently show that around half of the people in our society believe in ghosts and other forms of phenomena [34]. The scientists and their one-sided view of Sheldrake's concepts are a very small minority and we have not elected them as our protectors of the truth.

The reasonable thing for Wikipedia to do--not the skeptics, but the managers of Wikipedia--is to break Rupert Sheldrake up into three articles-- Rupert Sheldrake, Hypothesis of Formative Causation and Animals that know their masters are coming home (or whatever that last one is.

Stop assuming we are stupid and stop answering every complaint with wiki lawyering! That is contentious editing. Tom Butler ( talk) 16:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

uhh, the "managers" of Wikipedia ARE the Wikipedia editors who have determined that WP:POVFORKing is not appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Tom, you wrote: "There is no doubt to the rational observer that the rejection of peer reviewed academic journals is only possible because of an arbitrary line drawn for what is and is not acceptable in Wikipedia." No, that's not true. It's to avoid OR. Anyone can pick and choose primary sources of the highest quality and make any point they wish, which is a blatant violation of OR. That's why we use secondary and tertiary sources, and for medical/scientific matters we also use MEDRS to guide us. -- Brangifer ( talk) 17:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

As you say, we avoid primary sources to avoid WP:OR. But that is not the same as being required to exclude primary sources, because any competent editor can use them appropriately, ie. without drawing conclusions, and making analysis that is not there (per WP:SYNTHESIS). Attribution is the usual way to use primary sources correctly. Unfortunately, there are editors who exclude primary sources, no matter how they are used, except when they are convenient for them. -- Iantresman ( talk) 18:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

My gift to any amongst you with a funny bone: [35] David in DC ( talk) 04:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm very concerned about this edit. This allogation that he "dismissed him because he had forged references" only appears as a mention in the minutes of a small, private meeting. The claim has not been published in any newspapers, or discussed elsewhere (to my knowledge) except in a blog.

Despite this, and the discussion on the talk page, the user insists on its insertion and has repeatedly reinserted it, despite others (including me) objecting.

I don't want to edit-war, so I am not going to remove it again, but I'm asking here for help. I consider this to be a serious violation of WP:BLP. 88.104.19.237 ( talk) 20:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Reverted and commented on the editor's talk page. That's a personal claim sourced off of a primary source, wholly inappropriate. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 20:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

To clarify for User:UsamahWard - This is a primary source (as it is a transcript), where an allegation is being made. In order for this to be acceptable (and the claim is serious) it would have to come from a secondary reliable source with some measure of editorial oversight. Otherwise it's just something you found on the internets, with no clear notability or appropriateness. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 21:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggested the editor bring the discussion here, as the material is not new on the page, but has been there for over 3 years. What needs to be established if it is to be included is that it is relevant and reliably sourced; this is particularly important for BLP material.

As for its relevance, this short quotation is significant in at least three ways: firstly, it is a further indication of Gilligan's connection with the Labour Party in his early life - this is not contested, but is in contrast to his more recent support for Conservative politicians and his post on a leading Conservative supporting newspaper; secondly, it underlines the influence of Gilligan's extensive writing about the political differences in the Labour party in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets - in a meeting of the Labour Party's National Executive Committee (which should not be dismissed as a 'small, private meeting') Gilligan's articles about the competing Labour candidates were a significant source for the meeting's discussion; and thirdly, the allegation that Gilligan 'forged references' has relevance to recurring claims in his career that he diverged from the truth, most notably in the conclusions of the Hutton enquiry mentioned elsewhere in the entry.

Regarding the source, Labour NEC member Christine Shawcroft reports on all the NEC meetings on her official website; there has been no suggestion from any source that her report on this meeting was not accurate.

There is no dispute whether Keith Vaz made the allegation about Andrew Gilligan; the question, which we cannot answer, would be whether it is true. The allegation is in the public domain. There is no record of Gilligan denying the allegation other than on a third party political blog, which is why it was not referenced in the article. Even if he had denied the allegation, it would not change the significance of the allegation and where and when it was made.

I think its inclusion would only be questionable if Gilligan had taken action against the person who made the claim. Gilligan himself has noted in his blog that he would take action against any libel, and indeed has written about his successful action against Ken Livingstone. Despite his extensive writing in his blog, including where others have criticised him, he has not spoken out against this allegation, made back in 2010.

In my view the material should be reinstated as it was, or with any improved phrasing.

Note for User:FreeRangeFrog - my response above typed whilst you added your note for me. Just to emphasise, the source is an established website where the meetings of the Labour Party National Executive Committee are regularly reported; this appears to meet the criteria for a RS. UsamahWard ( talk) 21:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The allegation has also been published by the Mayor of Tower Hamlets, without any mention of the Labour NEC meeting: http://mayorlutfurrahman.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/have-you-ever-been-called-an-islamist/ UsamahWard ( talk) 09:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The keyword here is "allegations", and the fact that you're deriving all these conclusions from the material. The fact that the subject has not contested that claim doesn't make it true (or false), it means nothing in this context. All this is just original research. Further, a transcript is by definition a primary source because it has no context and no analysis. That's why we require secondary sources, so that someone else out there, a journalist preferably, reads the transcript, performs some fact checking and then publishes it. We're not supposed to do that job, our job as neutral gazetteers is to present the facts provided by those sources. As to your second source, do I need to mention it's a blog? That doesn't mean it's automatically unreliable if it can be verified, but at least it's better than inserting your own analysis (basically) of the original transcript material. That doesn't mean that the transcript itself cannot be included in the article somehow, as a supporting primary source, but it should not be used to support conclusions or claims, or anything else. Certainly not included raw, even to support a quote. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 18:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

(I wrote this before I read the reply from FRF above, and maybe I'm saying the same thing...)

Again, that's not an appropriate reference - I'll try to explain why. That "reliable source" also says that the Daily Telegraph feeds the hate merchants in the British National Party and English Defence league. Do you think it'd be appropriate to add that 'fact', with that source, to the DT article? Of course not.

As I tried to explain elsewhere, it's not appropriate to pull a fact from minutes of a meeting; you'd need to find a secondary source. If you could show a newspaper article stating the fact, I would have no problem at all. But if you can't, it's a form of original research, and inappropriate for a biographical article. 88.104.19.237 ( talk) 23:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Allegation of sock-puppeting (not the wiki kind)

I removed this part ( [36]);

In October 2008, it was reported that Gilligan had engaged in sockpuppeting. ^{Andrew Gilligan caught 'sockpuppeting' his critics Adam Bienkov} Guardian journalist Dave Hill wrote about the allegations.^{Hill, Dave (3 November 2008). "Andrew Gilligan,". The Guardian. London.} Gilligan stated that one of the alleged sockpuppets was his "partner". ^{"The Feral Beast: spoils divided at 'Private Eye". The Independent. London. 9 November 2008.}

If you read the above, you'll see it is a total non-story. People on commentary-blogs saying he might have posted on other blogs under alternative names.

In the part I removed, it sounded like he'd committed some terrible crime.

It doesn't seem to have been reported in any actual news articles; I don't think it deserves inclusion, especially given BLP concerns.

It's been reinstated by another user [37] who seems to insist we keep controversial material in this BLP while it is under discussion - which is contrary to BLP policy, viz. "Contentious material about living persons [..] that is unsourced or poorly sourced [..[ should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." ( WP:BLP).

Please advise what I should do. 88.104.19.237 ( talk) 13:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

What this anonymous editor fails to mention is that the same issue had been discussed at great length before in the article's talk page (now archived), then retained. Indeed, it has been discussed since. It shouldn't be the case that material is discussed in detail, then retained, then some time later removed again for all the same reasons. It appears that both notabilty and acceptable sourcing had been established, and as you can see above it has been presented in a neutral manner. UsamahWard ( talk) 17:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I was unaware that it'd been discussed previously. However, having read through the previous discussion, I can't see a consensus for including it.

Even if there were, consensus can change.

There is absolutely no justification for including this original research from blog-based sources in this bio of a living person, until/unless it is reported in a newspaper or other similar appropriate media.

This 'fact' isn't even tabloid gossip; it's pure speculation on blog-sites. Absolutely, totally inappropriate. 88.104.29.3 ( talk) 16:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

How have we traditionally handled early reports of a BLP subject being involved in a DUI incident? I would assume any reporting would be beholden to WP:BLPCRIME and we wouldn't add anything to the article unless and until there is a conviction (and even then given only proper weight). I'm raising this specifically given this widely-reported breaking news, but it would be helpful to get feedback as a general rule-of-thumb when DUI issues arise.-- Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

In the instance you cited, WP:WELLKNOWN applies over WP:BLPCRIME. GregJackP  Boomer! 18:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can see I should have listed the sources.

1. NBCNews.com
2. US magazine
3. NY Daily News
4. UPI
5. Toronto Sun
6. Fox8.com
7. WWAY
8. KLTV
9. WITN
10. KVUE
11. Charlotte Observer
12. Jacksonville Daily News
13. Edmonton Sun
14. London Free Press
15. WBTV
16. Daily Telegraph
17. ABC11.com

That's why WP:WELLKNOWN applies. Wikipedia is not censored, nor do we care if a person's feelings are hurt, so long as there are multiple reliable sources reporting the story. None of those are tabloids that I know of, and all are reliable. GregJackP  Boomer! 20:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Rubbish. This is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid scandal-sheet. The original source cited for the story seems to be an "Online Photo Library" [38] - a source of questionable reliability. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It's World Entertainment News Network, not an online photo library. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, according to this source, TMZ were the ones that broke the news. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of who broke the story, it is still firmly tabloid 'celebrity news' rather then material worthy of an encyclopaedia concerned with issues of enduring significance. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

<multiple edit conflicts> Note that I specifically noted "early reports/breaking news" as a factor. Given WP:NOTNEWS, would it not be prudent and more in line with BLP policy to wait until there is at least a charge laid in order to ensure we are not falling into the trap of rushing to add potentially incorrect/damaging information? It seems more encyclopedic to add "x was charged with y on October z, 2013, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to Foo", then to continually update as the news breaks? -- Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• In an ideal world we would wait until charges are actually filed, unless the weight of coverage for the incident was exceedingly high, which I don't think will be the case here. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 19:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Further, a DUI is not something like a murder that would become a permanent part of a biography. This is an ephemeral incident, and should not be included unless a string of DUIs becomes a notable part of this persons identity. Gaijin42 ( talk) 20:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

If that's the case the article could definitely use some eyes to help determine consensus as to how the developing story should be covered (if at all).-- Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 15:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• • Wikipedia would be more than a bit improved if we excised all references to celebrity DUIs absent deaths, serious injuries, and the like. Last time I look, "Memorialize public celebrity embarrassments for all time" was not one of the five pillars. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 21:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

☝ This. Lots. 88.104.25.210 ( talk) 01:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Bishop Ullathorne RC School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another school article where students have added BLP-problematic nonsense that involves school staff and other students, so I took the hatchet to the whole thing. A few eyes on this would be appreciated just in case. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 16:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Gawd, what is it about school article that think the WP:V doesn't apply to them?

[39] see Talk:Bishop Ullathorne RC School#Large amount of unreferenced info removed 88.104.25.210 ( talk) 02:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Vahram Zaryan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It looks like this article - which has been heavily edited by 83.142.151.122 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) who may or may not be Zaryan - is a bit of a mess. It has language, self-promotion and COI problems. I don't know if there are any problems with the pics but one of them could use some size reduction. I wouldn't even know where to start in dealing with it so I thought I would let members of this project work on it if any of you have the time and inclination. Thanks ahead of time for anything that you can do. MarnetteD | Talk 21:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced entry moved here § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 21:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at it.-- Auric talk 23:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I shoot harder; [40] (see diffs with reasoning) 88.104.25.210 ( talk) 02:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations. You also put a hole in the wall. [41] I fixed it.-- Auric talk 02:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the collateral damage. 88.104.25.210 ( talk) 03:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your efforts. If you haven't already done so you might put the article on your watchlists as the Paris based IP will, no doubt, be returning to edit the article. Thanks again. MarnetteD | Talk 16:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Richard Prebble (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MS Mikhail Lermontov (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A recent series of edits makes claims of government cover-ups, using inaccessible sources. Perhaps some original research as well. Anyone familiar with the subject, who can vouch for the credibility of these claims, or assess whether these violate BLP guidelines? Thanks, JNW ( talk) 21:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I've added the Lermentov article as related; it goes much further in blending sourced content with original research, with BLP concerns. See, for example, the end of this section [42]. JNW ( talk) 21:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Please can you explain and show diffs for the recent edits. It'll make it easier for people to see the problem. Thanks. 88.104.25.210 ( talk) 03:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm including the entire section 'Cabinet Minister' as it now reads:

In February 1986, as Minister of Transport, after the sinking of the Russian cruise liner Mikhail Lermontov, Prebble asked the Soviets to participate in an inquiry. The Soviets responded that it was unnecessary as they had conducted their own inquiry.[4] Prebble felt this had to be kept from the public and the fact covered up at the time,[5] resulting in a public outcry over the inadequate preliminary inquiry which failed to identify the underlying causes of the accident or any of the many deficiencies existing in the maritime industries of New Zealand and the Soviet Union at the time. He also effectively side-stepped the Official Information Act by having most of the former Ministry of Transport files transferred into the National Archives under his exclusive access control under the guise of "personal papers". No researcher has ever been permitted access to these files despite numerous requests.[6] Included in these files is probably the only existing copy of a RNZN report on the poor state of the life saving equipment[7] which was the subject of an apparently deliberate cover-up, all other copies disappearing, and the contents of which were denied by Prebble [8] and by a Defence spokesman Cmdr Gerry Power.[9]

His performance in this difficult situation remains a model example of dealing with unwelcome media attention. His strategy was outlined in his 1996 publication "I've been thinking" where he admits that in such circumstances he did not allow his departmental heads to front the media, but took on that role himself to isolate the media from the officials directly involved, in this case the Director of the Marine Division, Mr Hugh Jones, who was described as not performing well in front of journalists.[10]

I think it's WP:UNDUE, is based on WP:SYNTHESIS and laden with original research and commentary. I'm going to cut some of the most egregious content, but wonder how much, if any, is appropriate. The best, and only accessible, source used is a 2006 article that deflates the cover up and conspiracy charges [43]. After I'd made similar objections at the Lermentov talk page, the IP account removed all their edits [44], with the understanding that they did not comply with our guidelines. JNW ( talk) 13:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Isabelle Turell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

69.181.21.48 insists this is acceptable, even though it is a contentious claim supported by non- reliable sources, including a forum and some kind of fan page. This was initially reported (not by the subject but by someone else) to OTRS requesting deletion, but as usual the issue is material in the article rather than existence. I would appreciate if other editors could weigh in. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 22:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I've commented, at Talk:Isabelle Turell#"ad-hoc muscle worship" 88.104.25.210 ( talk) 02:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

A user (Neil2000; username is currently a red link) insists on having in the Byrraju Ramalinga Raju article the word disgraced to describe this living person (Raju), and in the lead no less. This is not a quote from some news organization or similar; this is Neil2000's personal text. See here and here. I've brought this matter to this noticeboard not only for the obvious reasons, but because, judging by this editor's edit history, he is likely to revert. Also judging by his edit history and talk page, he has proven to be very problematic and not a benefit to Wikipedia in the least. Flyer22 ( talk) 15:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Posted a note on the editor's talk page and watchlisted the article. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:37, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that Raju resigned after admitting to the falsifying of accounts on a massive scale, it is unsurprising that he should be described as 'disgraced' - as for example the Daily Telegraph does here, [45] India Today does here [46] and The Indian Express does here, [47]. WP:BLP policy exists to ensure that coverage of matters concerning living persons is fair, and is properly sourced. It does not exist to protect the guilty from fair comment. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Unsurprising yes, but Wikipedia doesn't generally use such adjectives in the first sentence. Take a look for example at Lance Armstrong, Ben Johnson (sprinter), Bernard Madoff and Adolf Hitler. -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Besides that, as clearly pointed out above, my problem with "disgraced" in the aforementioned instance is also that it is not coming from news organization commentary. It is Neil2000's personal text. If "disgraced" is to be included in that WP:BLP, it should be done appropriately (as in commentary from a news source about the matter) and with a WP:Reliable source. Flyer22 ( talk) 16:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

In that context, I searched for "Raju Satyam disgraced" and found nearly a million hits, most where the term has been used to describe the individual (though they may not be cited in this article). My sense is that the term disgraced may have a meaning and implication that is different in the Indian subcontinent then in the West, and the reaction of many editors (and WP policy) is based on the Western interpretation. Dwpaul ( talk) 16:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Even so, I think the article stands very well without the term, especially since, even if determined acceptable, it is contentious. Dwpaul ( talk) 16:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Maryam Kassim (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) redirects to
Maryam Qaasim (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
also redirected from:
Dr. Maryan Qasim (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Maryam Qasim (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page (Maryam Kassim) reports a false and incorrect biography of a current Minister in the Somali Federal Government. The authors mixes information for two seperate individuals, Dr. Maryan Qasim (Minister for Social Development) and Ms Maryam Cariif Qasim (MP). Attemps have been made to modify this however the author keeps reverting back to the previous incorrect material. Please either delete this page or report a biography of one individual, either Dr. Maryan Qasim (Minister/Tayo party leader and from Bravanese Clan) or Ms Maryam Cariif Qasim (MP from Mursade, Hawiyo clan). Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fhzumurudaa ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue was introduced by this edit [48] on the part of editor Soman who overwrote the article on Dr. Maryan Qasim with a redirect to the article on Maryam Qaasim on 19 October. Prior to this, they were in fact two articles, as they should be now. Restoring the former article pre-redirect. Dwpaul ( talk) 18:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if other editors could review links that may need to be adjusted and/or readjusted to point to the correct article(s) as I lack time to do this currently. Dwpaul ( talk) 18:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Also appears that there is a disambiguation issue as as the minister's own Wordpress page refers to herself as Maryam Qasim and other pages used as refs on her page refer to her as Maryam Qaasim in addition to the spelling on the restored page. Probably need hatnotes per WP:2DABS. Dwpaul ( talk) 18:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

No, both of the articles ( Dr. Maryan Qasim and Maryam Kassim) related to the minister. The problem was that in the original, pre-fork, article (i.e. Maryam Kassim) details of the other individual was mixed, and this occured much earlier. The solution is to create a new article for the second individual, Maryam Cariif Qaasim. -- Soman ( talk) 18:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, OK then; apparently I misdiagnosed the issue. Feel free to revert my edit, but please work with Fhzumurudaa and Middayexpress to sort this out in one or another Talk page and come up with a strategy. It seems that there is a lot of uncoordinated counter-editing happening here. Dwpaul ( talk) 18:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Just as a side-note, Somalis don't have family names (and definately no 'middle names'), so "Qaseem" should not be used for DEFsort, etc.. See http://books.google.com/books?id=vaDkDZmrZmYC&pg=PA79 So, the Minister is a person whose name is Maryam, whose father's name was Qaasim and whose grandfather's name was Axmed. The MP is a person whose name is Maryam, whose father was Caarif and whose grandfather was Qaasim. -- Soman ( talk) 18:24, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Very confusing and likely to lead to much mis-editing and mis-direction by non-Somali editors (and possibly even by Somali editors?). Appreciate the explanation here. Dwpaul ( talk) 18:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Seth MacFarlane (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Read online on October 20, 2013: Seth Woodbury MacFarlane[3] (/ˈsɛθ ˈwʊdbɛri mɪkˈfɑrlən/; born October 26, 1973 - died October 26, 2013) was an American actor. . ."

WTF? -- Carol M. ( talk) 05:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Warned the editor about this vandalism, which has been reverted. Dwpaul ( talk) 14:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Fasih Mohammed (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The wikipedia article on Fasih Mahmood is constantly being vandalized by Neelakamala. After refuting Neelkamala claim that a "communal self published site" was used to modify the article I expressly warned Neelkamal to stop vandalizing the article.

On the issue of "communal self published site" Neelkamala has the audacity to call leading dailies as communal. It is not clear if Neelkamala is extremely paranoid or sinisterly communal in vandalizing the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.11.162.171 ( talk) 11:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I recommend you invite the other editor to discuss this issue on the article's Talk page [49], rather than attempting to resolve your dispute with them via edit summaries. Thus far there has been no discussion in Talk nor any (apparent) effort to encourage it, which is generally a prerequisite for action against a contentious editor working on an article concerning a controversial subject. Dwpaul ( talk) 14:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Mark Kirkland (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IP addresses are repeatedly adding an unsourced date of birth to this article. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Added blp sources template to article. Dwpaul ( talk) 22:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Lin Evola (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is filled with undocumented "facts" and what is documented usually refers to the subjects own materials. Can someone fix this?--- Mylysol ( talk) 18:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific concerning the content you feel is a violation of Wikipedia's WP:BLP policies? Obviously, with plenty of time for research, all of the sources can be checked against the content, but perhaps you've already done this and are prepared to identify specific issues, which would save us all a significant amount of time. There doesn't seem to be a specific set of contested edits with which you have been involved, and there is no discussion on the article's Talk page [50] (which is recommended before coming here). Dwpaul ( talk) 21:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I do note that a SPA Rpulido7 ( talk) created the article in August and seems to be responsible for most of its current content, and that Reddogsix ( talk) has had to advise (and warn) the SPA repeatedly concerning BLP and other policies. The SPA seems to be disinclined to participate in Talk about their edits. Would still be helpful if you can advise any specifics you had in mind as you brought this here. Dwpaul ( talk) 22:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This may be the wrong place to post this, but WP:NPOVN seems to be dead as a doornail, so...

This article, on a living person, uses mainly primary sources from Sanger to describe his work. The Citizendium section and post-Citizendium sections are particularly bad, describing, respectively, a failed project in the language Sanger used to describe its aspirations (which it utterly failed to live up to) and Sanger's reporting of Wikipedia to the FBI and other controversial actions as if they were uncontroversial - but more or less every section is just about as promotional.

I tried to deal with it, but the article is very clearly WP:OWNed by Quack Guru, who insists there's nothing to even discuss.

In short, this is hagiography. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 21:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

David Bergstein (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

this article has highly personal views that are unsubstantiated by "any" public source, the career section in this article is trying to use wiki as a authentic source to spread a false information. please google this person and see if you get a single source that says this guy is a investment banker or did any investment banking work. more over this person's article itself needs to be deleted as this person does not qualify under the biography rules and required public sources to validate at all. please delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.156.244.230 ( talk) 11:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This IP address is registered to the Pegasus Blue Star Fund and there is a conflict between the fund and David Bergstein, a conflict the IP is now pursuing here it seems. [51] The IP also complained at ANI Dougweller ( talk) 15:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You are correct about this likely being someone bringing an off-wiki conflict here. However, the IP also does appear to be correct about the notability and sourceability of that subject. I have been able to find anything other than stories about the lawsuit. Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I was expecting to get some hits in Variety and the like, but found zippo. (outside the legal disputes) Two kinds of pork ( talk) 15:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

IP does appear to be correct about the notability and source ability of this subject. I spent last 30 minutes searching for the movies listed, a lot of them on the list cannot be found as movies and some of them do not even have the subject as associated with the movie. Outside of legal disputes there are no other independent notable references available on this subject. I agree this subject does not meet the standards. I will research more and post my comments later what more if any I find. Initial search turned up nothing not a single notable reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlfestival ( talk • contribs) 16:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC) — Nlfestival ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Lol. Yes, he may not be notable, but really -- a new editor who has made 3 edits in article space, all deleting material from David Bergstein's article? The article now has one sentence and a list of films. Dougweller ( talk) 19:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I have just started editing and this is the first subject I have started working on, so I am working real hard to earn respect and do the right thing, after researching David Bergstein for last 3 hours on every public forum, I only come up with law suits and negative press, there is not a single independent article that shows how David Bergstein has done the facts his article claimed, for instance the article claimed he is a experienced Investment banker with over 3b in deals, there is no public source that can validate that claim, it looks like a PR firm has been hired to clean up the image and a positive article with self-proclaiming facts is the only positive article in the public space. Wiki has not become a platform for advertisement, this article should be deleted immediately, I say this after a very through research. Even the movies claimed in the list, when you click on those movies Wiki have negative news associated to David Bergstein for example click on the film “Nailed” in his list and follow the news reference under “Nailed” -- Nlfestival ( talk) 20:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Nlfestival. This guy is a nobody and the investment banking claims are not only false, but completely random and unsupported by any facts whatsoever. His press always seems to be negative when you conduct real research. We want to preserve Wikipedia's reputation for legitimacy and credibility, which means deleting this article. Remember: it's not about the quantity of articles, it's the quality.

<- See [52] regarding Nlfestival's connection to this issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Elliott Murphy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Elliott Murphy ( talk · contribs)

A puff piece, largely unsourced. I've begun copy editing, but this could use a lot more attention. One question I've always had is whether long listings of redlinked recordings and publications are appropriate; they provide further evidence of the subject's productivity, but if they're not linked to their own pages they look like promotional listcruft. Any assistance will be welcome. JNW ( talk) 14:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I've done some clean up but it needs more.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps someone, or some ones, can have a look at this very puffy article which also appears to have key sentences copied from all over the interwebz (I removed the most egregious example, the opening sentence, already). I hate tagbombing, but I don't have the time, interest, or energy to go through this article which appears to be vanispam for a probably notable person. Your help is appreciated. Drmies ( talk) 15:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In order to create a balanced article, we need to add Criticism and Refutation section to this page. Some user called GorgeCustersSabre keeps on deleting it again and again giving reason that it is not sourced well. The source of the paragraph is one of the leading English newspaper published in Pakistan and it can be checked and verified. If user is acting as a proxy for Mr Qadri, I would request him to stop doing it as we need to have balanced approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omar Farooq 78 ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• I see no reason to believe that The Islamic Post is a reliable source, let alone "one of the leading English newspaper[s] published in Pakistan". You would be wise to take this up on WP:RSN before re-inserting it in the article. If it's not reliable or authoritative, there is no reason to accept its criticism in a BLP. In the meantime, I am reverting your edit. Drmies ( talk) 16:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• I do note that the article (even after I went through it quickly) needs to be cleaned up and checked for neutrality. The same applies to Minhaj-ul-Quran and the associated laundry list of organizations. Drmies ( talk) 16:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• A 'balanced' article would not assert in Wikipedia's voice that "On 12 April 2012 Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri was challenged and refuted by scholars of eminent Islamic institute, Al Azhar Islamic University, Cairo, Egypt regarding his self proclaimed title of Shaikh ul Islam." The scholars in question may have claimed to have 'refuted' him (or more accurately, to have refuted his claim to be a "Sheikh-ul-Islam"), but we aren't obliged to take this assertion as fact. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Leonard Horowitz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Information contained in this article is false and defaming. It has been reported in the past, no actions have been taken.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Necrotanic ( talk • contribs)

This article needs attention. There is almost no biographical information. Instead editors have made it a battleground for controversial medical issues by citing the subjects writings.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree the article is a mess, but I see no defamatory information there. In fact, I'd say it is, if anything, laudatory of Dr. Horowitz. Can user Necrotanic give an example of the problematic information? -- Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of the Bradley/Chelsea Manning situation but have not really followed the farrago of how to refer to that person on Wikipedia. Can someone please confirm that I've done the right thing in moving Dominic Noonan to Domenyk Lattlay-Fottfoy - this guy legally changed his name at some unspecified point in the past and news reports now refer to him under the latter monicker, although they mention his former name also. Thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 14:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted your move as undiscussed and controversial. Furthermore, we do not use the legal name, we use the WP:COMMONNAME - hence why we have Jimi Hendrix not James Marshall Hendrix; Malcolm X not Malik El-Shabazz; Peter Sutcliffe not Peter Coonan etc. etc. The Manning issue is entirely different as that relates to trans identity. Giant Snowman 15:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. I would have thought that BLP trumps COMMONNAME. It is scarcely controversial - the change is a legal fact and happened at least a couple of years ago (news reports refer to it as that time) - but what the heck. I'll respond further on the discussion that you have presumably opened, thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 15:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Calderstones School (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Earlier revisions of this article (the four spanned by https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Calderstones_School&action=historysubmit&diff=576483178&oldid=576416800 ) include the real names of two musicians who attended the school. As far as I know those names are not public knowledge and per Wikipedia:BLPPRIVACY I suggest those revisions be hidden from general view. Pinkbeast ( talk) 17:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

In an attempt to tidy-up the above and replace part of it (for footballers) with a well referenced article I have remove entries which are either uncited, poorly cited (blogs etc) or just insults, such as Judas for Sol Campbell. My attempts are being reverting as they seem OK to the editor. Surely the normal requirements for BLPs apply here and uncited entries, entries sourced from blogs and insults should be removed?-- Egghead06 ( talk) 04:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

BLP absolutely applies there, and you should feel free to report this to either WP:ANI or WP:3RR if appropriate. That said, dialogue is important, and they might think you're doing away with everything, rather than trying to at least source most of it. Regardless, in reality anyone is free to nuke anything that is BLP-related and unsourced, without so much as a "sorry dude". § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 05:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I have gone through and removed (hopefully) every unreferenced entry from this list. Giant Snowman 14:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Vivek Mishra (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

against the wikipedia policy . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mukeshacharya ( talk • contribs) 08:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This article may be a candidate for deletion under WP:GNG, but it is unclear what complaint you are trying to express about the article. What about it is "against the wikipedia policy"? 14:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I've fleshed out the article a bit. I think he probably passes GNG.

But the problem here, I think, is one of mistaken identity. I don't think this gymnast is the same person as this guy whose background is a bit more salacious. David in DC ( talk) 02:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Upon further review, it might be the same guy. [53] David in DC ( talk) 03:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Clearly the same guy. Here's my work [54]. Please note the final edit summary and help if you can. Sources may appear in the coming days that can serve as substitutes. David in DC ( talk) 18:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Birmingham (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"== biorgraphy of Stephen Birmingham lists his book The Grandees as published in 1997 but I have a copy (without an isbn number) published in 1971, =="

In the biography of Stephen Birmingham his book The Grandees, America's Sephardic Elite, is listed as published in 1997 and has an isbn number, but I have an edition published in 1971 without an isbn number that you might want to add. Sincerely, Virginia Castro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.177.186.101 ( talk) 17:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this falls under WP:Original research. If you can find a citable reference that states the book was published in 1971, you are more than welcome to add this information to the article (with the citation). Without a citation to the contrary, the article must rely on its present sources (specifically ones returned using the ISBN) and place the date of publication at 1997, even if you have a book that states otherwise. Also see WP:Published, which includes a description of circumstances where a book may be distributed on a limited basis but not "published" as we define it here. Dwpaul ( talk) 00:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

According to Worldcat, the IP editor is likely correct: http://www.worldcat.org/title/grandees-americas-sephardic-elite/oclc/130038&referer=brief_results -- Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Very good. Can WorldCat be used as a cited source here? Dwpaul ( talk) 02:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

We have a template for it, so I'm assuming the answer is, "yes". I'll add this to the article.-- Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to state for the record that this does not fall under WP:OR. A reliable source for the publication date of a book is... the copyright page of the book itself.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 17:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Jimbo Wales: I stand corrected, thank you. Dwpaul ( talk) 17:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Robert N. Rooks (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been blanked several times in the last few days by an IP editor who wants it to be removed, accusing another IP editor of sabotaging it with unreliable sources; the editor who removes the content also replaces it with personal attacks against a person claimed to be the other editor. Many of the references appear to be primary sources or not available online, so it isn't clear whether they verify the article's content, and I'm not certain whether this meets WP:GNG - I proposed it for deletion but the {{ prod}} template was removed. Peter James ( talk) 19:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Replaced prod. We'll see what happens. FWIW, all sources in old versions are apparently court documents, so this seems a clear case of both BLP and OR problems.-- Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

And all of the sources that were there appeared to be market wire "pr" releases. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 02:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

In declining speedy deletion, User:JamesBWatson (an admin) chose to restore the policy-violating material. I have removed it again - and if it is restored, I will continue to do so, regardless of the status of the person restoring it. Crap like that simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

In its current form it's a non-notable BLP so Afd anyone?-- ukexpat ( talk) 20:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed a non-notable BLP, so I have taken it to AfD. I have seen several editors, here and elsewhere, indicating that they think it should be deleted, and more than one of them has specifically mentioned AfD, so I can't begin to understand why none of them nominated it there before I did. However, lack of evidence of notability is the only problem. The essential facts of the negative statements in the article are supported by highly reliable sources, much more so than is to be seen in hundreds of articles on non-notable subjects that are taken to AfD and are not blanked. I see no good reason whatever why this one should be blanked (or virtually blanked) while deletion is being discussed. JamesBWatson ( talk) 20:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I also fail to see why the article should be blanked. The the sources seem perfectly adequate to cover BLP to me, at least for the duration of an AFD. Sources not being available online is not a lack of reliability or verifiability, so that is a non-starter. Gaijin42 ( talk) 20:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Have you even read WP:BLPPRIMARY? We do not cite court documents as references for convictions in BLPs. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I have raised this matter at WP:ANI. [55] I have also made it clear in deleting the offending matter again that I will take this to the WMF if necessary - it is worth noting that the supposed 'highly reliable sources' included alleged 'court documents' actually hosted on the website of a business Rooks has been in a legal dispute with... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• I have thought about this at considerable length, and decided that I was mistaken in declining the speedy deletion nomination as an attack page. I intended to come back and delete the article, but by the time I had a chance to get back on line Drmies had already deleted it. I believe I was reading CSD G10 too narrowly. I also think that I was giving too much weight to some aspects of the BLP policy and too little to other aspects. JamesBWatson ( talk) 07:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Please review Stan Romanek -- This page seems a thinly veiled attack on the subject - headings are polemical and lack objective tone (e.g., "===A Jaw-Dropping Inconsistency==="). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:35A0:1B40:F460:19BF:9B8E:9DE ( talk) 11:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I've removed some of the more of the worst offending material. Giant Snowman 12:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Frank Spooner (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The name of Frank Spooner's wife is Mary Louise Flippo not Mary Catherine Flippo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.81.172 ( talk) 13:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The name of Frank Spooner's wife (and children) is unreferenced, so I have removed. Giant Snowman 14:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

User talk:92.12.51.89 is repeatedly changing the straightforward wp:rs cited statement that Godfrey Bloom's father was a fighter pilot, describing it as a piece of puffery! JRPG ( talk) 16:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not straightforward at all. I could claim in an interview that my father was Superman, it doesn't make it accurate. Both of you are edit warring, please take it to the article talk page. Giant Snowman 16:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

B. Lynn Winmill is a US federal district judge who recently issued a temporary restraining order in a case alleging a former employee was planning to release the company's source code. The judge took note of the fact that the employee self identified as a "hacker" on his web site in deciding to order that the employee's hard drive be imaged and returned to him without first giving him notice. This was criticized in a blog and picked up on slashdot. An IP keeps inserting a tendentious description of the judge's action, based on the blog, slashdot and the court order itself. None of these meets the requirements of RS and BLP, and, as several people mentioned on slashdot, a careful read of the court order does not support the blog's claims, e.g. there were additional factors supporting the TRO. I've already reverted 3 times, so another pair of eyes would be helpful here.-- agr ( talk) 19:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The judgement is real, the judge's only decision of public note and concern is this as shown in the headlines generated by this decision. It is a fact that the judgement happened and it is cited. It is a fact that at issue is the 4th amendment and its protection against unreasonable search and seizure is at issue, there is a citation on this that while not "primary" is absolutely valid and describes the issue. It is a fact that being a self-described "hacker" was central to judgement granting the search warrant and this is verifiable in the judgement and the article cited. It is a FACT that this generated controversy in popular online forums such as slashdot's "YRO" - "your rights online" section. This is clearly cited, and citing the actual online controversy is a valid citation of a PRIMARY source by definition, it is a direct link to the controversy regardless of what you think of that forum. Repeatedly deleting everything on this issue on the disputed assertion that this is badly cited is inappropriate censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorbie ( talk • contribs) 09:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The jugement is indeed real, here is a link http://www.scribd.com/doc/176684845/Battelle-v-Southfork-Order . Judges issue ruling all the time and quite often they make someone unhappy. We simply can't include every disputed ruling a judge makes in their bio. It is bedrock policy on Wikipedia that contentious information on a living person must be based on reliable sources. Blogs and online discussion forums like slashdot are not acceptable for this purpose. The ruling itself is a primary source, and, while usable, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." per WP:PRIMARY. Your opinion that this is a 4th amendment issue is contradicted on the article talk page by someone who claims to be a lawyer, and neither opinion can be a basis for what goes in the article. If this particular ruling gets significant coverage in a reliable secondary source, it may merit inclusion in the judge's bio, subject to WP:WEIGHT. Absent any such coverage, it does not belong in Wikipedia.-- agr ( talk) 13:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

While I generally agree with this, it is my understanding that WP:BLPPRIMARY supersedes the general application of WP:PRIMARY, so the Scribd document is not usable. E.g.: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Am I correct in this understanding? -- Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

If a judge issues a ruling that is notably controversial as reflected by sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources, then I think we can cite the judge's ruling itself as a source for what that ruling actually says. But any interpretation of the ruling requires a reliable secondary source. BLPPRIMARY goes on to say "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." -- agr ( talk) 17:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY. And I'm fairly sure Slashdot is not a reliable source, so the IP needs one that says exactly what they are attempting to insert into the article. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 16:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

why a do follow backlink to blusigs.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.178.205 ( talk) 23:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You mean the reference? Seems valid enough. Otherwise I'm not sure what you're referring to. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 16:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is about Chelsea Manning again. Template:WikiLeaks has for quite a while included both names (" Chelsea Manning (formerly known as Bradley Manning)"), but User:Yworo has removed it as a BLP violation, and claimed a 3RR exemption. Now, I thought the consensus (after much discussion and arbitration) was that "Bradley" does not in itself contradict WP:MOS and is not a BLP violation. Would we be able to get some clarity on this? St Anselm ( talk) 02:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a little disingenuous to claim that merely mentioning Chelsea used to be Bradley is in itself a BLP violation. The name change is not universally known, and it helps people identify the person by the name they know them as in the nav template. And if I were Yworo I'd be wary of testing that 3RR immunity principle in a context like this one. Since the article already obviously mentions it (or should it be removed from there as well?) this is more a case of seeking consensus, not yelling "BLP!!" because you don't like how something is worded. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 02:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

See here and here. Neither version of the article is good, but the one that User:Martyehrlich (who claims to be Marty Ehrlich) keeps reverting to is certainly the worse of the two versions. Flyer22 ( talk) 05:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I left some thoughts at User talk:Martyehrlich. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Flyer22 ( talk) 08:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Including for the revert. Flyer22 ( talk) 08:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm going offline for a while. Could others please keep an eye on this article? An IP is adding the implication that the victim is an accomplice. [56] There has been discussion on this point on the article's talk page. The article's wording may well be improvable - but it's a sensitive BLP issue and needs consensus. I've warned the IP on their talk page and in my last revert's edit summary about the consequences of edit warring. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 07:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The edits here have clearly crossed the BLP line, so I've semiprotected the page for three days to prevent further IP vandalism. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 08:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC).

This allegation (that the victim was complicit in her abduction and/or the murder of her mother and brother) was exhaustively discussed here [57] and on the article's Talk page [58] weeks ago. There has never been any official statement to support the allegation, and official statements discredit it. Unless this changes, the allegation should be immediately reverted as a BLP violation if reintroduced. Dwpaul ( talk) 02:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Patrick Manning (rower) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Defamatory material inserted by IP with (apparently) an off-Wiki grudge. Reported to OTRS. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 17:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Upon examining a recent edit to this article I noticed the single sentence discussing Karr's transition that read "Reich began hormone replacement therapy and to transition gender identity in early 2010 including a legal name change" and this had one source. Then I noticed this source was Inside Edition which is essentially a tabloid. I questioned this as being a valid source on the article's talk page, and another editor added several more "sources", all of which (including the original Inside Edition link) are included below.

1. "John Mark Karr Gets a Sex Change". Inside Edition.
2. Barnes, Ed (May, 24, 2010). "John Mark Karr Re-Emerges to Form a JonBenet Cult". Fox News. Retrieved 24 October 2013. {{ cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= ( help)
3. Boone, Christian (July 6, 2011). "The enigma formerly known as John Mark Karr is now a piece of art". Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
4. Rossen, Jeff (June 2, 2010). "Ex-fiancee: Karr wants to form child sex cult". Today. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
5. "John Mark Karr Gets Sex Change: Report". Huffington post. May 29, 2010. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
6. Harrell, Ashley (May 24, 2010). "Report: John Mark Karr, Reputed Pedophile, Formed Cult of JonBenet Lookalikes". SF Weekly. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
7. Grace, Nancy (May 25, 2010). "Man Who Claimed JonBenet Ramsey Killing Accused of Cyber-Stalking". CNN. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
8. De Yoanna, Michael (March 30, 2010). "Is John Mark Karr Now a Woman?". 5280 Magazine. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
9. "http://ksfm.cbslocal.com/2010/05/13/jonbenet-ramseys-fake-killer-is-now-living-as-a-woman/". KSFM. May 13, 2010. Retrieved 24 October 2013. {{ cite web}}: External link in |title= ( help)
10. Rowson, Kevin (June 8, 2010). "John Mark Karr: New Name, New Troubles". 11 Alive. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
11. Lavietes, Bryan (August 23, 2012). "Pedro Hernandez: Killer, Crazy or Both?". TruTV. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
12. Burke, Alafair (June 8, 2010). "They're Baa-aaaaack!". Alafair Burke. Retrieved 24 October 2013.

However there is a big problem here. All of the sources included either explicitly reference the Inside Edition claim (one article uses a nebulous "it's been reported") or they don't even support the statement being made. If the Inside Edition article isn't reliable, neither are the rest of the sources that refer to it. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 02:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed all of the sources and the information it was supporting. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 22:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems a bit hasty. I went to two of your links at random, the one from CNN and the one from Today, and can't see Inside Edition being mentioned in either one. -- GRuban ( talk) 13:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read what I said again. Either the sources cited IE or they don't even support the statement being made. The CNN and Today links fall under the latter category. Read the articles again, then ask yourself if they support the statement "Reich began hormone replacement therapy and to transition gender identity in early 2010 including a legal name change". Two kinds of pork ( talk) 22:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The CNN source says "Court documents show Karr legally changed his name to Alexis Reich in 2008." The Today source says "Today, he's living as a woman, going by the name Alexis Reich". They don't say anything about the hormone replacement therapy or the 2010 date, but they do support the transition gender identity and the legal name change. -- GRuban ( talk) 19:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate you watching/reading that. The CNN source does confirm a name change, however the Today clip is basing gender transition claim off of reporting done Diane Diamond from this Daily Beast article. While Ms. Diamond is probably reliable (if it weren't for her stint at NPR I'd probably think otherwise), the Today show video does not appear to be doing any original reporting. I still don't think we've reached the bar of having multiple reliable sources for anything but the legal name change. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 20:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, I don't think we should touch the CNN source with a 10-foot pole. A) Nancy Grace? Considering this is the BLP board let me just say I seriously question whether or not she is credible. B) This source is a "rush transcript". I'm only speculating, but it probably didn't have much of an editorial review C) The "source" for this transcript is an "unidentified male" from a video of unidentified origin. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 21:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Certain users have blatantly violated the BLP policy by putting some extremely maligning, libelous and controversial sentences to be made appearing as Wikipedia voice, although the matter is not proven anywhere. The person mentioned in the article is a highly popular and respected political leader occupying a post as democratically elected Chief Minister of a large Indian state. Link: The last sentence if this para. [59] has extremely hateful content appearing as Wikipedia's voice. While discussing it on the talk page, these bunch of users threaten to block/ notify for not towing to their line. These users are Sitush, Darkness Shines, Maunus, RegentsPark. The user Darkness Shines is accused of being a proxy of a banned user T-banned MarshalN20. Many others have raised objections to make certain malintentional sentences to be removed or not made appear as Wikipedia voice, but they steamroll everyone, term it as consensus (which is infact discussion among these bunch of users only) and threaten to block the person. One has not seen so much vitriolic, hateful content in any other BLP. Even a news report termed as hoax has been included in the article [60]. Request to please look into the issue and make some modifications in libelous contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by True win ( talk • contribs) 03:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Larry Klayman has earned some press lately for making some inflammatory statements about Barack Obama. On Wednesday, an IP editor added what at first blush appeared to be vandalism to his article -- a statement that he "molested his children." But the IP also cited this Ohio appellate court decision, which appears to bear out the claim, more or less. Amazingly, however, there are very few (or no) reliable sources on the subject, as far as I can tell. The only candidate appears to be this source, whose reliability lies somewhere in a gray zone. I lean toward it being citable with attribution. The author, Terry Krepel, has a declared political bias and suggests his stories are self-edited (see here), but he's a veteran professional journalist with strong creds, he's been cited a number of times elsewhere on WP (without attribution, no less), his website is independently funded, and his language in the article about molestation is arguably overcautious.

My question: Can material from this source regarding the subject's "inappropriate behavior with his children" or "inappropriate touching" be added to this BLP? Talk page discussion at Talk:Larry Klayman#BLP.

I realize this query could have gone equally to WP:RSN, but given the inflammatory nature of the allegations I thought this would be a place to start. I have no skin in this game except that to hope that a consensus is reached. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 06:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if it were better sourced, the material does not belong in the article. At the moment, though, neither the primary source nor the opinion piece can be used in support of this material. In my view, it's not even a close decision.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 12:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Found a few sources, but I don't think we're at the threshold yet where we could consider inclusion. Gamaliel ( talk) 16:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2012/09/bradlee_deans_attorney_larry_klayman_allegedly_sexually_abused_his_own_children.php
• http://wonkette.com/485407

The appellate court decision cannot be used as a sole source, per BLP/PRIMARY. The Tripod website is definitively not an acceptable source for BLP. I agree with Gamaliel that there is not enough reliable secondary-source coverage at this time to permit us to include this incident. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 17:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all three of you. I'd like to understand why you believe the Krepel source is unreliable (not just whether). As I see it there are factors cutting both ways. An analysis of those factors (and any others) would be helpful. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 22:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think , after having read all the links, that these allegations will likely never have a reliable source for their inclusion. Given that accusations of this nature especially require impeccable sources, we have essentially nothing to go on here. Whether we are talking about the blog or the court document, these allegations (and that is all they are) have been leveled in the context of a divorce. The decision makes it clear that the allegations were followed up by the authorities, and no charges were, or are likely to be, filed (at least in regards to those specific allegations). If there were further secondary sources to back it up, the most I say we could use the decision to support would be something like, "Courts have in the past questioned his veracity in serious matters." Unless and until a news outlet reports something more substantial, there's not much I think we can say. -- Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is it unreliable? Because it's exactly what you say - a self-published personal blog by someone with a political bias. That kind of source, regardless of whether it's on the right or on the left, is precisely the sort of source that BLP specifically prohibits from being used for contentious, potentially-defamatory material. The sort of allegations being discussed here are the most damning sort of defamatory material and must have sources that are beyond reproach. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 03:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I don't do a lot of BLP editing so this is a good education for me. The message I'm getting from both of you is that, in a BLP, the more contentious the material, the more reliable the sourcing must be. That's not explicit in WP:BLP but it certainly makes sense and should probably be added to the policy. (My reading of WP:BLP#Reliable sources was essentially that for BLPs, and especially for contentious material, you have to be extra careful to only use reliable sources but that the standard for what constitutes a reliable source was the same as for non-BLP articles. Hence I was analyzing the Krepel source using my usual non-BLP lens.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 06:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

See WP:BLPSPS for the specific policy section I refer to: Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. The idea is that anything which we republish about a living person should have first been published by a source that is generally considered to have had some level of editorial content control and fact-checking - i.e., a peer-reviewed academic paper, an online news organization such as Politico, a dead-tree book from a legitimate publisher, etc. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 06:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Aha, missed that. Well that settles it then. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 07:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Brian Froud (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

the whole personal life section needs a re-write, persons are not linked nor explained and teh Authors son is getting a listing here when he shuld have another page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.88.144 ( talk) 11:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Giant Snowman 11:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I wish to request semi protected, auto-confirmed, or some other assistance for the Stone Phillips article. Over the past few days a person or persons keeps removing valid, properly sourced, information regarding the birth name of Stone Phillips. I believe it may be a case of sock puppetry with one person using two similar usernames as well as an IP. I have attempted to establish a dialogue with the person(s) both on the article talk page and their individual talk pages to no avail. I've explained to them that the source for the information is one thats been used on multiple other Wikipedia articles and has always proven to be accurate before and even provided them with a link to the source. Other experienced editors have also reverted the undue removal of the information but the person(s) continue to persist. I don't wish to get myself in trouble for edit warring, so any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Sector001 ( talk) 19:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

A rep for Mr. Phillips has contacted OTRS regarding this, and I'll update when I have more information. Hopefully because we've replied to them the attempts to remove the (allegedly) incorrect name will stop, but if they don't then feel free to request protection at WP:RFPP. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 19:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've verified that the book does list the name "Lester Stockton Phillips" via Amazon's "look inside" feature. But I've also looked him up in the usually reliable Biography in Context database, and that lists him as "Stone Stockton Phillips". If we find a few other sources with the latter name, maybe we can just ignore the one source listing the former name as an outlier. Gamaliel ( talk) 20:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think (fwiw) that it is probably a good idea to remove the challenged detail and put "Stone Stockton Phillips" because I'd bet a pound to a penny it is going to go that way, and it'd be nice to get it right asap. It really does look that the hitherto solid reference source has got it wrong this time. -- Roxy the dog ( Morphic Message Me!) 20:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

If we can get a formal citation for that I'll change it. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 21:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Forgive my intervention in this, I just had a peek at the page history, I have no interest nor reference, just a curiosity. as to what it was about. It seems Mr. Phillips wants to get this corrected, that's all. -- Roxy the dog ( resonate) 21:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm leaning towards the source that identifies him as "Lester Stockton Phillips". It's hard to imagine that his parents gave him the first name of "Stone". It's clearly a nickname. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That was my thought as well, Liz. Mr. Phillips was born in an era when parents usually didn't pick non-traditional names for their children, as so many are wont to do now. As far as it being Mr. Phillips with the two usernames on the article edit summary, well as we all know there's no verification required for any John Q. Public to claim to be Stone Phillips when selecting a username. If an official, verifiable, representative of the real Mr. Phillips has requested correction/change then I have no problem with making it so, obviously. But to have an unsubstantiated username or IP user bend us to their will by just being headstrong is wrong IMHO. Sector001 ( talk) 21:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. lets just wait and see. -- Roxy the dog ( resonate) 21:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually "Stone" is not that uncommon as a name, and realistically we can't expect to measure its validity simply because we feel he was born on or before a certain date. In any case, I explained to his rep that we need either for the author of the source to disown his work, a competing source (in which case we can fall back to WP:ON), or a primary one for negative verification, but we'll see. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 21:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm all for real names unless the subject of the BLP objects. After all, if Wikipedia can honor a porn star's request to delete her real name, it can do the same for a news reporter. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Seriously, FRFrog, you've heard of another man with the first name of Stone? The closest I know is Rock Hudson but that was completely made-up. L.

Yeah, actually there was a guy at a company I worked for a few years ago. Stone was actually his middle name, but he went by that. I guess it was kewl. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 21:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Sector001: Is this something you or other editors are emotionally attached to? Could we remove it on a simple courtesy basis? § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 21:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's a source that gives his name as Stone Stockton Phillips. It's a long Google Books URL, so I had to shorten it: ow.ly/qbRpH Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

AHA! Thank you! § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 22:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

@ Sector001: As per the source provided by @ Taylor Trescott:, and standard operating procedure in these cases, I've amended the article to remove the "Lester" thing. We can add a note in the lede specifying that there is a source that has him under a different name, but one two conflicting sources plus the communication from the subject's representative tilts this in favor of the nays. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 22:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's another source. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 22:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Well done. -- Roxy the dog ( resonate) 22:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey it's all good with me. I try not to get too emotionally attached to articles, especially a news guy I don't really have much of an opinion on either way. My primary goal is always accuracy first. This was just a first occasion that there was some question as to the reliability of that particular source, which I've used on several other Missouri-related articles over the years. Perhaps if it had been another veteran editor things would have been different (for one, we'd have been much more likely to work it out ourselves). But when it was a brand new editor, using multiple names/IPs and seeming to be a bit recalcitrant, I didn't want to simply give up because some Phillips fan didn't like the first name or considered it unflattering. "Warts and all" is usually my motto. THANKS to everyone for all the comments and advice. Much appreciated. Have a great Wiki kind of day, y'all! Sector001 ( talk) 22:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You did everything right, you had a valid reliable source, and the IPs and/or SPAs were edit warring. It's just that they think that's the way to solve their problem. Usually the second step when they get reverted and blocked is a strongly worded email to OTRS. So everything went according to plan § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 23:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Editors continually reporting a biased statement, citing tumblr.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=RVIVR&action=history

/info/en/?search=RVIVR

Thanks!

• There is a request for page protection currently active for this page. The statements should stop after a lock's been slapped on it. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

R. W. Johnson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm reposting a request [61] from the Help Desk here:

Dear Wikip33edia

I am writing about the entry on myself - RW Johnson. There is a lot of poor information here, supplied by a small sect of Trotskyites who wish to do me down for obvious ideological reasons. They have supplied you with information citing, for example, the one critical review (by a rival writer) of a best-selling and well-reviewed book I wrote (South Africa's Brave New World) and they also both fomented the agitation alleging racism by me and then supplied you with stuff about it. All the nonsense about baboons.

For the record, several members of my family are black or married to black people. I have a black nephew and niece, black grand-nephews, a black daughter in law, a whole set of black in-laws - and well, need I go on ? The idea that I am a white racist is, frankly, laughable. Also, the biog online makes no mention of the fact that I was a Professor at the Sorbonne, that one of my books (KAL 007) was filmed in Hollywood, that I am the Chairman of the Advisory Board (and also a founder) of Good Governance Africa and that I travel the Continent a good deal trying to set up GGAs in all the major centres. Similarly, no less than three of my former students featured in the British cabinet of 2010 - they all clubbed together to send me a photo of it, signed by all three - Hunt, Huhne and Hague). Perhaps half of the staff of the Economist are also my former students including Bill Emmott, the former editor. Similarly, I have many friends among the French political elite inc. a number of Communists and Socialists and also the Gaullist leader, Francois Fillon. The Vice Chancellor of the University of Cape Town, Max Price, is another of my former students. In the official history of Magdalen College my name features more than any other in the modern period. As Senior Bursar of Magdalen I was responsible for the completion of the Great Tower (then restored), a distinction which I share only with Cardinal Wolsey who helped erect it in the first place. I was also responsible for turning the whole college around financially and then for dramatically improving its academic results. I also helped set up the Stanford University campus in Oxford. 1If you go to my website, rwjohnson.co.za, you will get a far better view of what I do. Frankly, what you have about me at the moment is just a disgrace.

RW Johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.227.243.59 ( talk) 21:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC) [62]

The article talk page includes an OTRS complain reply and noted action from February 2010. -- Jreferee ( talk) 13:22, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are not able to add the product of original research to articles, even if invited to do so by the subject. Any information here must be reflected in reliable sources cited in the article. While your accomplishments are impressive, only those that are documented in/by an independent, reliable source can be included here, with citations of those sources. If you would like to supply links or directives to these sources as materials for editors to work with, you could certainly do so on the Talk page. Conversely, if there are specific, unsourced or poorly-sourced claims in the article you feel should be removed, you are free to point those out, either here or on the article's Talk page; these will generally be removed promptly under the BLP policy (assuming citations cannot be found to support them). Re: the previous OTRS complaint, it is unclear to me what the exact material was that was being challenged and/or whether it has been reintroduced subsequent to the entry in Talk. Perhaps the subject could advise. Dwpaul ( talk) 00:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be a BLP violation via synthesis of material of David Bernstein on the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

The following has been repeatedly added to the article.

In 2008 George Mason University Law Professor David Bernstein wrote on the The Volokh Conspiracy website that he refused overtures to publish with the Institute because of his view that the Institute "play[s] footsie" with racists, anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists.

The actual source contains.

Yet, as Kirchik in TNR notes, there are really two disparate groups to whom the limited-government message appeals: philosophical libertarians (which consists of a tiny percentage of Americans, but something like 10% are at least inclined toward a general libertarian perspective), and those who hold a deep grudge against the federal government based on a range of nutty conspiracy theories, ranging from old chestnuts like a freemason conspiracy, a Council on Foreign Relations/Bildeberger conspiracy, or a conspiracy to strip the U.S. of its sovereignty in favor of world government; to variations on old anti-Semitic themes (ranging from domination by Zionist conspirators to domination by Jewish bankers led by the Rothchilds to domination by Jews in Hollywood); to newer racist theories; to novel conspiracy theories about 9/11, the pharmaceutical industry, etc.

Mainstream libertarian groups like Cato and Reason have nothing to do with the latter types, but other self-proclaimed libertarian groups, like the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, play footsie with them. (I recently turned down an invitation to do a book review for an academic journal published by LVMI because I don't want my name associated with the Institute.) Paul himself seems to have made a career of straddling the line between respectable libertarian sentiment and conspiracy-mongering nuttiness, receiving support and accolades from both sides.

My problem with the addition is that the actual source does not explicity have Bernstein saying that the Ludwig Von Mises Institute "plays footsie" with racists, anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists. The second paragraph of Bernstein (above) throws LVM into a general category with all kinds of possible issues, but does not specifically make the statement being presented. Presenting the opinions of a person is something that should not be taken lightly. If we are going to ascribe a position or statement to a living person we better damn well make sure that that person said exactly what we are saying that they said.

A literal reading of Bernstein would at most imply that he thinks the LVM partakes in "newer racist theories; to novel conspiracy theories about 9/11, the pharmaceutical industry, etc" because he ascribes the LVM to "the latter types", which would appear to mean the last few categories from the 1st paragraph. But even this requires some Original Research on the part of the reader of the section. This section should be removed immediately as a clear violation of BLP in that it ascribes an opinion to a living person that is not explicitly stated in the source. To be clear, this is not an issue about LVM. Arzel ( talk) 16:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an attempt to split the finest of hairs. Someone who adheres to "newer racist theories" is a racist; someone who professes "old anti-Semitic themes" is an anti-Semite. Bernstein is clearly documented as holding the view that the edit ascribes to him. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 17:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Please point to where Bernstein explicitly said that the LVM plays "footsie" with Racists and anti-Semites. Arzel ( talk) 19:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be best for the Wikipedia article to say that Bernstein thinks LVM plays footsie with people who "hold a deep grudge against the federal government based on a range of nutty conspiracy theories". I do not think Bernstein said (or meant) that LVM plays footsie with that entire range (i.e. with every single person in that range). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Exactly how is this a BLP issue? The subject here is an organization, not an individual. There is already a thread on this and some apparent general sanctions mentioned at AN/I. - Wikidemon ( talk) 05:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Charitably, an argument could be made against this on the basis of WP:RS. I don't believe the argument would have merit, but it could be made. However, there is absolutely no argument to be made on the basis of WP:BLP. There just isn't a particular living person on the receiving end, nor is it so small a group that individuals are singled out.

I move that we close this discussion with a clear ruling that there is no WP:BLP violation. If this leads editors to shop around for another forum, perhaps WP:RSN, now that they've bombed here and WP:ANI, I can't stop them, but I don't particularly recommend it, either. MilesMoney ( talk) 19:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It may well be that LVMI is too big to qualify for BLP protection. But, David Bernstein is not too big. When a living person is misquoted, or severely disparaging remarks are wrongly attributed to a living person, that's a BLP violation. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 19:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it would definitely be a WP:BLP problem if we misquoted Bernstein. However, we have done no such thing. As User:Nomoskedasticity so clearly put it, any attempt to deny that we accurately summarized Bernstein depends on hair-splitting that's hard to take seriously. MilesMoney ( talk) 19:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

If you split the hair one way so Bernstein characterized LVMI as sympathizing with racists and antisemites, but you split the hair the other way so he didn't, then it's very much a BLP problem for the article to say he did. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 19:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

' Wikipedia:ANI#WP:BLP_violation_at_Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute is relevant current WP:ANI discussion. Please do not characterize how various discussions are going which is only your personal opinion and not an admin ruling. User:Carolmooredc 19:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Please stop interfering with discussions that are their proper place by trying to send participants elsewhere. This is claimed be a BLP violation and this page is the correct forum for determining whether the claim is true.

It does not belong on WP:ANI and should never have been raised there, particularly while this discussion was still active. At best, WP:ANI might be a last resort for appealing WP:BPN, although I wouldn't recommend that sort of this. MilesMoney ( talk) 19:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI, MilesMoney was topic banned for six months on libertarian topics, broadly construed, from the ANI. That would include this article.

I am quite certain that the article itself is SPS personal opinion piece and used in a POV manner. However, there are some BLP implications: the edit does seem to jump to narrow conclusions from a broader statement and possibly misrepresent the author. And the broader BLP implication is that editors keep adding negative info about the Institute or individuals affiliated with it and then try to get some negative comment about it in BLPs of affiliated individuals in order to make them look bad. Any article can have BLP problems if an individual is directly concerned or there is a strong implication that anyone involved in it has negative characteristics which are not sourced by WP:RS on a case by case basis. User:Carolmooredc 14:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I've emailed Bernstein

He rejects the idea that he is somehow being misrepresented by the post. Again, I am baffled by this, as the post reflects the objective logical meaning of the passage. (He does say that that "conspiracy theorists and racists and anti-Semites aren't separate categories" and thus "it would be more accurate to say "plays footise" with "anti-government conspiracy theorists, including those who promote anti-Semitic and racist conspiracy theories.") So, can we close this now, and move it to RSN? Steeletrap ( talk) 23:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

His statement does more accurately reflect what he wrote. But the WP:RS was rejected by most editors at WP:RSN and the WP:NPOV issues also have been brought up there and at the talk page. At some point in last day or two someone removed it. User:Carolmooredc 13:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

 – The particular material has been removed from the article. – S. Rich ( talk) 17:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Bevan Morris (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This BLP seems to have too much minor detail that borders on fluff to my eyes but I'd like a second opinion. Its a short article. Could someone take a look and make changes as needed? Some things in the article that seem non-notable are:

• In 2009, Morris was living in Adelaide, Australia and reportedly spent only a few weeks a year in the Fairfield area
• In the 1990s, he was reported to be the lowest-paid college president in Iowa, receiving an annual salary of $9,000 in 1994.
• In 1994, Morris wrote the Foreword to the Maharishi's book "Science of Being and Art of Living." The 2001 edition, published by Plume (a division of Penguin), contains this Foreword. In it, Morris lays out a historical account of the Maharishi's contribution in the field of knowledge and the technologies for the development of human consciousness.
• During the 1992 presidential campaign, Morris said that "coherent brain-wave patterns indicate greater creativity, intelligence, harmony with natural law and less neuroses" and "We believe that of all the presidential candidates, he [John Hagelin] has the most highly coherent brain."

Thanks in advance, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Rand Paul (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article inaccurately states his views about same-sex marriage. I attempted to change it to comply with our sources, but another editor is edit-warring to keep the violation in. The exact same thing is happening over the exact same sentence in Political positions of Rand Paul.

I'm sure that WP:BLP allows me to revert as many times as I like, but I'd sooner let the community decide this in advance. MilesMoney ( talk) 23:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

From the NYT

A fervent opponent of big government, Dr. Paul believes that federal authorities should stay out of drug enforcement, and that same-sex marriage, which he opposes, should be a decision left to the states.

MilesMoney's .

Paul opposes same-sex marriage and believes it should be made illegal at the state level.

PrarieKid's .

Paul personally opposes same-sex marriage, but believes the issue should be left to the states to decide.

It is pretty clear. If anyone is violating BLP it is MilesMoney. Arzel ( talk) 23:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Concur with Arzel's interpretation. The citation says literally that Rand believes it should be left to the states, not that the states should make same-sex marriage illegal. Suspect that MilesMoney is really trying to say "the states should be the ones to decide on the legality of same-sex marriage," and I would propose that as a NPOV way to express the concept without giving undue weight. Dwpaul ( talk) 23:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Paul does want states to make it illegal; he opposes same-sex marriage in his own state. MilesMoney ( talk) 01:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think I figured out Arzel's confusion. We know that:

1. Paul opposes any laws about same-sex marriage at the federal level, pro or con.
2. Paul endorses laws against same-sex marriage in Kentucky.
3. Paul opposed same-sex marriage, personally.

What we don't know is what, if anything, Paul thinks of same-sex marriage laws in other states. It may well be that he endorses laws against same-sex marriage in states other than Kentucky, but we have no data so we can't say one way or the other.

I'm going to fix the article now to make this clear. MilesMoney ( talk) 01:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you just stick to what he says? The sources do not say what you claim them to say. Arzel ( talk) 01:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The source says he supports laws against same-sex marriage in Kentucky. MilesMoney ( talk) 01:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT Where in that source does he say that he specifically supports laws against same-sex marriage in Kentucky? He did say that Kentucky did decide what to do in Kentucky and that the Federal government should stay out of it. He does support Kentucky to do whatever it wants to do. Arzel ( talk) 02:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Rand said "... I've always said that the states have a right to decide. I do believe in traditional marriage, Kentucky has decided it, and I don't think the federal government should tell us otherwise. There are states that have decided in the opposite fashion, and I don't think the federal government should tell anybody or any state government how they should decide this. ..." That does not say that he "endorses laws against same-sex marriage in Kentucky," it says that he endorses the right of Kentuckians to draft and pass their own law(s) on this topic without federal interference or encroachment. Perhaps Rand has said more about his opinion concerning Kentucky's law elsewhere, but not in these citations. Dwpaul ( talk) 02:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen a source that says his opposition to same-sex marriage is purely personal, and everything we know points in the opposite direction, so why would we suggest that it is? This looks like a violation of WP:BLP. MilesMoney ( talk) 03:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be a violation of WP:BLP to include an assertion not supported by the citations based on your inference that since no source you have seen says his opposition is purely personal, it must be therefore be more than that. Dwpaul ( talk) 03:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I can easily show you a source that says Paul "opposes same-sex marriage". How does this allow us to say that his opposition is purely personal? MilesMoney ( talk) 03:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Let me make this simpler. Our sources says he opposes same-sex marriage. Our article says his opposition is personal, not political or legal. But here's a source confirming his support for a federal amendment against same-sex marriage. This makes it obvious that his opposition to same-sex marriage is not merely personal, so the article is currently violating WP:BLP by saying that it is. MilesMoney ( talk) 03:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The article uses neither "purely" nor "merely" to describe Paul's opposition. While you may think that something is obvious, the article need not and should not state something only because you think it so (and failing to state the "obvious" is not a BLP violation). The article should only include assertions supported by its citations, not by inferences. Dwpaul ( talk) 04:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's exactly what it's implying, and that's contrary to our sources. We should change it so that it has no such false implication. MilesMoney ( talk) 05:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the problem is the word "personally." That can imply a viewpoint that an official holds but tries to keep separate from his official duties. Absent a source that quotes him using that word, we should not draw that conclusion. But in the most recent sources cited, he clearly says the question should be left to the individual states and the federal government should be neutral on the matter. Perhaps

Paul opposes same-sex marriage, but believes the issue should be left to the states to decide.

I tried to chase down the source of the ontheissues.org claim that Paul supports a federal constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, but is was far from clear and seemed to be based on a broader survey question. If there is a clearer source that quotes him as supporting such an amendment, that could be mentioned too, perhaps with a year to reflect a possibly evolving position.-- agr ( talk) 13:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

If he said (as many libertarians do) that it's not for the government to decide, then it would make perfect sense to say his opposition is merely personal. However, he says it is for the government to decide, on a state level. This removes the argument for his opposition being merely personal. He also says:

"I really don’t understand any other kind of marriage. Between a man and a woman is what I believe in, and I just don't think it is good for us to change the definition of that."

Please note the last part, where he says he's against changing the definition of marriage. The plain meaning of this is that he opposes laws that redefine marriage to allow two men or two women.

It would be nice if he were clearer, but what we have so far doesn't leave any room for "it's only personal". MilesMoney ( talk) 18:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here's [63] another source. Ignore the site, just read the quote, which we can support from any number of highly reliable sources.

The gist is that he admits his support for states deciding on same-sex marriage instead of the federal government is not an end in itself, but part of a plan to delay the national legality of same-sex marriage so that those opposing it, such as himself, can "win back the hearts and minds of people".

I believe this makes it very clear that his opposition is not merely personal, but part of a political goal. MilesMoney ( talk) 18:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with the language I proposed above?-- agr ( talk) 14:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response; I was distracted.

The language you proposed would be fine if we changed the "but" to an "and". MilesMoney ( talk) 04:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like clarification on whether the following statement at Pat_Condell#Atheism is ok to have:

He has been criticised by Christian author Dinesh D'Souza on AOL News, who said "If the televangelists are guilty of producing some simple-minded, self-righteous Christians, then the atheist authors are guilty of producing self-congratulatory buffoons like Condell."

D'Souza, Dinesh (26 September 2007). "Why Is This Atheist So Smug?". AOL News. Archived from the original on 12 September 2009. Retrieved 2009-09-20. {{ cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 20 February 2009 suggested ( help)

I am thinking it may not be allowed because of WP:BLPSPS.-- A pinhead ( talk) 23:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure whether AOL News can reasonably be considered a self-published source, but other than using Condell as a poster child to insult atheist authors as a group, I'm not sure what relevancy this specific comment by D'Souza has to the subject of this article. If D'Souza offers more specific criticisms of Condell at the cite than "self-congratulatory" and "buffoon," perhaps those would more appropriate to cite in this article. Dwpaul ( talk) 00:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

This article has major issues. I think it is badly written, sourced and over exaggerated. The subject does appear to be notable as someone making claims to the throne of the Hawaiian Islands but as an encyclopedic article...it seems to be somewhat biased and the wording....odd to say the least. I am VERY concerned that Wikipedia is being used for political purposes here and the sourcing seems lacking and the links to off Wiki (I do see the irony in the word...yes) sites in the body of the article are inappropriate, to say the least.

All of the Hawaiian Royal family articles should be a concern to us as an encyclopedia as they are poorly written and sourced. Sadly, it appears there has been a great deal of time put into these articles but they are sadly lacking. Could we get more eyes on this article at least. The claims being made are not well sourced and seem to be a matter of contention. I have contacted the Bishop Museum in Hawaii and have joined Glam to better source these articles. Please...help!-- Mark Miller ( talk) 01:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like this edit addressed your concerns, right? TheBlueCanoe 17:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Kyle Snyder (wrestler) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There were two edits claiming Kyle Snyder is the son of Dan Snyder, the owner of the Washington Redskins. They were not sourced or verified, and are completely false. I'd like to prevent any further vandalization of this page in the future, thanks for your help!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotrocks05 ( talk • contribs) 17:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Warned the IP on their Talk page that the information was false (the wrestler's dad is Steve) [64]) and that citations are needed for future edits. Dwpaul ( talk) 17:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Antonio Buehler sounds like a self written biography. Nothing is verified or really even known. Most sources are from self made pages, such as youtube. He is a very controversial figure in Texas, in the city of Austin.

If this was a true page it will reveal the controversy, more details on his war against Austin Police Department and members such as Patrick Oborski. All links and truth can be found on articles from real news websites via search engine as I cannot post links here.

He was scheduled for a deletion and was never performed. I guess I am not the only one who knows this page is not in the terms of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.59.156 ( talk) 20:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Fernanda Cuadra (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"== FERNANDA CUADRA (on Nicaraguan Swimmer) =="

Dear Wikipedia Team:

I am Fernanda Cuadra. I considered the article written about me highly offensive and misguided. It describe my performance in an personal matter, when WIKIPEDIA article should not make personal appreciation, they should be descriptive. The part I am against and I demand to be removed is this "She rounded out the field with a poor swim to last place in 2:38.25, the slowest of all in the heats," I am OK with the rest of the article bu DEMAND this part is removed.

Kind regards,

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.83.199 ( talk) 21:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The information on the subject's performance in the 200m Individual Medley at the Sydney 2000 event is supported by a reliable source (the official results document [65]), though the characterization as "a poor swim" may not be NPOV. Otherwise it is all factual and should not be removed. Other editors may know if this is a fair characterization to make in the terminology of the sport, or not. Dwpaul ( talk) 00:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Will revise the sentence in the mean time to "She rounded out the field in last place in 2:38.25, the slowest time in all five heats" since this appears to be fully supported by the citation. Dwpaul ( talk) 00:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I suspect we ought to remove the bit about the slowest time in the five heats. She only swam in one heat, and the conditions can vary from one heat to the next. I don't see that the sources made this multi-heat comparison. Sometimes people swim slower because the competition is not as good, and here the winner had the slowest winning time of these five heats --- and I'd bet a considerable sum that the fact of the slowest winning time is not in that winner's BLP. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Removed WP:SYNTH from this article. Wifione ^Message 16:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Last January Jodie Foster made a speech at the Golden Globes. In it she " came out" but without coming out, this is, she said "I already did my coming out about 1,000 years ago back in the stone age". [66] This was discussed here ( archive) and the consensus was that as Foster never mentioned the word "lesbian" she should not be referred to as such, nor should be included into a LGBT category. The consensus has challenged by an user at its talkpage ( Talk:Jodie_Foster#Redo_consensus), but there again was clear she should excluded per WP:BLPCAT. Ten months later, @ Hearfourmewesique: is deciding the consensus to exclude should be ignored, first in the article itself, and later with knowledge that this has been discussed in the past. Despite the fact, Hear4 is persistently violating the BLP policy in the article's talk page as well. [67] [68] Can we have more eyes about this, because it is clear that WP:SECONDARY references cannot decide the sexuality of a person, and that doing it can create legal problems to Wikipedia ( Tom Cruise#Litigation), because Hear4 is applying WP:IDHT about the community consensus to exclude, as denoted at the relevant discussion Talk:Jodie_Foster#Golden_Globes_and_speech..._again.3F. © Tbhotch ^™ ( en-2.5). 00:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read the discussion I initiated on the article talk page. Editing others' comments is a direct violation of WP:TPO, hence me reverting my own comments back to what they were. I also listed, in a very clear and presentable fashion, all BLP policies that are directly pertinent to this, including (but not limited to) the part stating that "BLPs should simply document what [reliable secondary] sources say", as well as the part stating that "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 05:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: In said speech, Foster clearly stated that she had come out earlier. It is not possible for a non-LGBT person to come out because of the very definition of the expression. It's like quoting someone stating they had been a victim of anti-Semitic attacks because of their heritage, but claiming that person is not Jewish because they never used the word "Jewish". Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 05:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sexuality is not like religion. You can come out as a bisexual, gay/lesbian, transexual, and many other sexualities that exist. It is not as "he was a victim of anti-Semitic attacks [therefore he is Jew by default]", and this is what you don't want to understand, and even you contracted yourself: speculation about her sexuality here with assertion of her sexuality here. WP:TPO is clear: "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed ... Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments [are] Remov[al of] prohibited material such as libel [or] living persons [policies violations]". © Tbhotch ^™ ( en-2.5). 06:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

How many other sexualities exist? Please, do not include sexual deviations, as they are irrelevant. LGBT includes all sexualities that are not straight. The diffs you brought up to allegedly show that I "contracted" [ sic] myself are another example of your lack of understanding: I said that she is either gay or bi, both of which are acceptable under the definition of coming out. So yes, to reiterate my previous comment here: it is not possible for a non-LGBT person to come out. This is why the LGBT category needs to be added. If you want, we can reach a compromise and end this travesty right now. Here is my proposed wording:

Foster's speech during the 2013 Golden Globes ceremony was widely reported as her coming out. ^{[1] [2] [3]}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hearfourmewesique ( talk • contribs)

The other non-LGBT sexualities are: Asexual, pansexual, queer, intersexual, heteroflexible, homoflexible, transvestite or transexual, and all of them are not covered complety by the "LGBT" term (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender), and the category Category:LGBT actors requires "actors who are, or are known to have been, gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender." Also, WP:BLPCAT requires that "Categories regarding ... sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the ... orientation in question, and the subject's sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." At the moment Foster joked "I am... single" she could easily said "I am [insert sexuality here]", but she didn't and she had her reasons to not say it. Foster "came out 1,000 years ago", "came out" does not mean "come out the closet" by default, it means multiple things, and there are several articles that don't say "Jodie Foster is lesbian", just say "she came out", and some others say "she came out, lesbian or bisexual who cares?", [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] because she never said "I'm lesbian", and you are blatanty saying that because she "came out" and she is "dating a woman" the result is that she is "lesbian" automatically; that's defamation, and I already told you what happens when secondary references write defamatory articles.

Let's analyse your editing about this and in general. At Jodie Foster, you said:

• "Talk is pretty clear about her being confirmed as gay". This edit is a blatant violation of the BLP policy alone. It was an unsourced addition of contentious content about a living person. Also, talk was "pretty clear" she never confirmed that, that's your point of view.
• "There is no reason whatsoever to tiptoe around the subject. Also, three more good sources." A violation of a consensus to exclude this information, despite the fact you already knew there was a consensus to exclude. You cited three references HP, Reuters and NYT, the last one is the only reference that never says "she is lesbian", the question is where the HP and Reuters got that information if she never said it? I can't believe this is more neutral and objective than HP and Reuters.
• "Do not remove sourced information. It's been discussed on the talk page, and there are multiple sources, including Foster herself, that back this up.", can you explain where "Foster herself" said "I'm a lesbian actress"? None of your references "back this up"
• You said above and in the article "Foster's speech during the 2013 Golden Globes ceremony was widely reported as her coming out". Apparently you haven't cared to read the article because if you had done it you would have noticed you are adding redundant content: [75] "Foster publicly came out during the 2013 Golden Globes ceremony.[67][68][69] She broke up with her long-time partner, Cydney Bernard, in 2008. They had been together since 1993.[70][71] In her acceptance speech upon receiving the Cecil B. DeMille Award at the 2013 Golden Globe Awards, she commented about her sexual orientation..." First, you are adding content that it was already there, second, you are removing a logical order to the paragraph: "she came out in 2013, she dated a woman for 15 years, she came out in 2013", what's the sense of doing that?

At Talk:Jodie Foster, you said.

• "Golden Globes and homosexuality... again?" and "After the above thread, there should not be any further exhaustion and discussion about her well established homosexuality." Just two of your references say "gay/lesbian", can you explain how if her "homosexuality" is "well established", there are several references that doesn't say that she "came out as lesbian"? Also said "Please state a valid reason", the consensus to exclude was the valid reason.
• "Per WP:TPO, stop editing my comments. I'm not reinserting the info into the article (for now), so please be as respectful to me as I am to you. Gotta go now, will pick this up later." AS I explained above WP:TPO even says that we can edit or even remove your comments regardless how "disrespectful" the action is, especially if this is poorly sourced.
• "Again, per WP:TPO, please do not touch other editors' comments. Thanks" Template:BLP: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."
• "Yes, by definition, because the definition of gay is having a same sex relationship. Maybe bisexual..." I thought her sexuality was "well established" according to you; "but that would also put her in the LGBT category", not if she is "asexual" or "heteroflexible"

Here at BLPN:

• "It's like quoting someone stating they had been a victim of anti-Semitic attacks because of their heritage, but claiming that person is not Jewish because they never used the word "Jewish"." Do you know how many times I've been attacked for being Catholic, even when I'm not Catholic? Many times and it is just because I'm Mexican, he comes from Mexico, Mexico is a Catholic country, therefore, he is Catholic. [ According to your logic, if the NYT calls me "Catholic", therefore I'm Catholic.

Your own background

• This mixed with this just equals that you don't want to include the information because the article "needs it" (if it was "necessary" it'd be there since January), but because you find necessary to edit-war with others, and it doesn't matter if you are blocked or you attack others, the important thing is win. Anna has told you, many times in that chat alone, "walk away", "step back", because even Anna may know that this is enough to "exclude" your edits, and that considering your block log, any admin can block you at any moment. She said so perfectly "What does that leave you with? Millions of articles." There are millions of articles in which you can contribute, but you are now engaged with this particular article in which you have to reverse two community consensus that clearly say "exclude" to include your information, isn't be easier for anyone and for the article to exclude the information? It will survive even if the info is not added, and its exclusion won't "imply that she is straight". © Tbhotch ^™ ( en-2.5). 22:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh Lordy, you actually went there. Even going as far as personal attacks: "you don't want to include the information because the article "needs it" (...), but because you find necessary to edit-war with others, and it doesn't matter if you are blocked or you attack others, the important thing is win." In case you haven't figured out, I am passionate about my edits, and my sometimes trigger happy persona has gotten me in trouble several times, but that has no bearing on the validity of my intentions, which you have absolutely no right to speculate on, let alone excrete those hideous accusations at me. But hey, thanks for digging in my sewer pipes to find all the material you needed to disqualify your opponent, because " all is fair on Wikipedia". For the record, I never suggested, for example, that you would be better off editing the Spanish language Wikipedia because your comments are full of basic grammatical errors... so in terms of civility, I think I've been the better person so far.

Nevertheless... this is getting too long. I gotta be honest, even though I'm pretty sure I butted heads with Rusted AutoParts at some point, xe is right on the money with hir claim that "[previous] consensus is bullshit". The editors who support the exclusion are making interpretive claims on Foster's behalf, directly contradicting several sources that have been established as reputable and reliable for a long time. There is also very good reasoning by editors such as Nowyouseeme, Elizium23, Moncrief, and even the IP. There is also the "mantra" that Delicious Carbuncle seems to repeatedly reassert throughout that thread: " consensus does not override policy"... yet when I told you the same exact thing, you rushed to contradict it, yet you were totally complacent when the same argument worked in your favor... I can dig more, but I'll be the better person – again – and keep my points as pertinent to the subject matter as possible, although you're doing your best to lead me into temptation. Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 12:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Why do you keep bringing up Tom Cruise? He sued a couple of tabloids for asserting rumors. This is about citing several reputable news agencies, including The Associated Press and Reuters. Therefore, my proposed wording from above is probably the best way to go about it, since we do not assert it as a fact, but as BLP policy instructs us, "simply report what these sources say". So, about that wording, can we reach an agreement here? Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 12:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• "you needed to disqualify your opponent", congratulations, you proved the point you are here for WP:BATTLE and not contribute, also the addition of your background is not a WP:personal attack: "What is considered to be a personal attack?: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." Your own block log is the evidence. I don't see you as an "opponent", and if you want me to see me as such it's your problem. The inclusion of your "sewer pipes" was added just to confirm what I thought since the moment you decided to not drop the stick. Also, FYI, I do edit the Spanish Wikipedia, and there is a page that explains my English level, and it is linked in my signature. Unlike you, I don't take personal such criticisms. Anyway, being a "reputable news agenc[y]" won't prevent you from being sued for libel. Also, your proposed wording is already there, I don't know what else you want to add. © Tbhotch ^™ ( en-2.5). 17:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Rob Astbury (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A whole lot of contentious nonsense I just hacked away. Reported to OTRS. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 02:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Will take a look. Wifione ^Message 16:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this [76] Appropriate? I think it violates WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS. I am at 2 RR and I don't want to go any further. I especially find the term 'racist remarks' a bit much. Plus, I would like some outside eyes. Thanks. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 00:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

At first, I thought it needed cleaning, but on 2nd thought this doesn't belong (for now) Two kinds of pork ( talk) 01:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the section for a 2nd time, so I'm also at 2RR. Titling the section as "Racist remarks" is IMO a violation of BLP unless we have multiple sources calling those statements racist. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 12:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Recently, another editor has been attempting to force content into this article which was previously deemed as unsuitable at least two times at this very noticeboard (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive175#Lloyd_Irvin_(again) for the most recent and lengthy debate.) I'm not exactly sure what recourse is best here but I sure could use the help before this becomes a silly edit war. Buddy23Lee ( talk) 09:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Kurzon ( talk · contribs) nominated for the sin bin (>3RR). Ridiculous... Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked Kurzon ( talk · contribs) for 60 hours (he has a history of 3RR and has been blocked previously) and Buddy23Lee ( talk · contribs) for 24 hours, both for edit warring at this article. Giant Snowman 11:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Recently, another editor has been attempting to force content into this article which was previously deemed as unsuitable (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive187#Geoffrey_Nice). We are currently in a undo/un-undo/un-un-undo battle. (They have only ever edited this page of Wikipedia, which makes me suspicious as to thier motive). I'm not sure what should be done at this point. Jamesfranklingresham ( talk) 13:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

User warned and notified of this discussion.-- ukexpat ( talk) 20:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The User ignored the warning and re-instated their changes again this morning. Their response to the warning is on their talk page ( User_talk:Correctingly). Is there something more that can be done? Jamesfranklingresham ( talk) 11:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I've issued a 3RR warning. Next stop will be a block. Giant Snowman 11:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This is Correctingly. I reject any notion that my motives should be suspicious, there is no Wikipedia rule which states I should be editing more than one article. Furthermore, the person undoing the edits has the name "Gresham" in the username which the name of the college which the subject of the Wiki entry attended. This is not a neutral editor. Finally all the sources are correctly attributed and available in the public domain, having been sourced from legal UK court documents and published UK newspaper article. I request a Dispute Resolution and a lock on future edits of this page until resolved. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctingly ( talk • contribs) 14:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked Correctingly for continuing to violate BLP policy. Giant Snowman 15:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Snowman. I would not disagree to a lock of the page, but I think that the contentious edits should certainly remain off the page until further adjudication. (This is effect of the edits on Geoffrey Nice's page since Snowman last looked at it; Correctingly re-instating the edits, and my taking them off). The issues with the edits are succinctly put in the original posting (here, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive187#Geoffrey_Nice) - I have little to add other than expansion on those points. (That I am associated with Gresham College is no secret - hence the statement on my user page - but I hope that the points regarding the article and sources should speak for themselves). Jamesfranklingresham ( talk) 15:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This cycle of reverting without discussing need to end - from both of you. If you cannot use the article talk page, then I will protect the article and you will have to go to WP:DR. The block, however, related to BLP violations as opposed to edit warring. Giant Snowman 15:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sebastian Doggart (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

this is a resume, not a person of import — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.253.126 ( talk) 21:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Article was proposed for deletion but was dePRODed just a week ago. See comment here. [77] This is an AfD or PROD issue, not a BLP issue per se. Please see procedures at those links. The article has also already been flagged to indicate it needs to be improved with sources and in tone. Dwpaul ( talk) 00:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Subject appears to pass the tests at WP:NN for notability and certainly is not WP:BLP1E. The article needs work to make it less resume-like but is not a BLP violation. Dwpaul ( talk) 00:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Note that the PROD tag was removed from this article the same day it was added by a different editor. My opinions were based on a cursory review, but I think it's fair to say that an attempt to delete would not be uncontroversial, pointing to the AfD process (rather than PROD) if you want to pursue this. Dwpaul ( talk) 00:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I also added a COI warning template to page creator Oxford2008's talk page, as this user appears to have created/contributed to only those pages that are related in various ways to the subject of this article, and I strongly suspect the user is the article's subject. Dwpaul ( talk) 15:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

For your notice: I noticed a few edits on articles I watch where a new user, User:Rpinkett, has inserted references to "Randal Pinkett" and his career in articles about Randal Pinkett and institutions connected to Pinkett. Not sure if this is the actual Randal Pinkett, but this smacks of COI/Self-promotion if it is...while Pinkett is a notable person, I'm rather certain this is not entirely proper, but not knowing how y'all seem to go about it. User's contributions: [78] -- ColonelHenry ( talk) 23:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It appears the situation is being adequately addressed through other channels. [79] But thanks for the report.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Antonia Bird (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Antonia Bird died several days ago. There are two dates of birth that are given among RS: 1959 ( [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85]) and 1951 ( [86], [87]). Her page lists 1951, and there has been some discussion on the talk page about it already. A user claims to have found a birth record of her from 1951. The other page this affects is the Deaths in 2013 list, where age of death is listed. So what's the deal? -- Jprg1966  ^(talk) 01:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

From a BLP standpoint, and unless and until an unimpeachable source is found, it may best best to say simply "date of birth variously reported as 1951 or 1959". However, if I had to choose an RS for reliability, I would probably go with the NYTimes which reports 1959 (and happens to be what the majority of sources cited say) -- and include it as a ref on that specific info. Some celebrities/notables are very protective of information concerning their ages and some deliberately release conflicting information. Dwpaul ( talk) 02:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

BBC also reports her age as 54 [88]; that's what's cited at Deaths in 2013. I would take that as pretty reliable. Dwpaul ( talk) 02:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

She was, in fact, 62 at the time of her death, as confirmed by a primary source here, and by close friends and relatives here "My cousin Antonia Bird was definitely born on 27th May 1951! She has always been just a couple of months older than me – she therefore sadly died aged 62 – Harriet Greene" - and here - "Antonia Bird died aged 62. Laughed with her partner Ian today- the fact it is reported at 54 would have amused her greatly!.... She said if the Internet age blip- at one point it worked in my favour- now I just look bloody old for 54! Antonia Bird was 62." "Pls send my love & condolences to Ian. I laughed at the age thing too: in '94 I was sworn to secrecy!". The question is whether we should report the fact that other, purportedly reliable, sources, have got her age and date of birth wrong. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 08:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I would say yes, in a footnote. Dwpaul ( talk) 16:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking through Atotalstranger's contributions, it is clear that he or she does not understand the WP:BLP policy. I left a message on Atotalstranger's talk page regarding my concern on this matter, which also states that I would be bringing this topic here for discussion. I feel that comments from more than one editor here who understands the WP:BLP policy may make Atotalstranger understand it. Flyer22 ( talk) 20:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, it's true that a problem exists as you describe. But looking through the comments others have left the editor, which the editor has deleted (and therefore presumably read), it appears that the problem is even broader, and extends to repeated tendentious desire to add what is -- at best -- OR. And delete RS-supported text.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 21:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course. As seen in the message I left on his or her talk page, I pointed to those other complaints. I also see that this matter has been taken to WP:ANI following my report here. Good call, Andy. That's what I should have done. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Their was a notice up here that the person Wayne Ray was sentenced for possession of child pornography and he himself removed it from his own Wikipedia page. There are many news articles already speaking of his sentancing and charges such as at http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/10/19/18850516.html and http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2009/08/15/10470401-sun.htm

This information is public knowledge and he should not be able to continue to remove this information as he is a public figure in the city of London, Ontario. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.141.4 ( talk) 22:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Despite the username, we cannot be certain that the contributor responsible for the deletion is Ray himself. I see that the conviction has been restored. Given the nature of the offence and the sentence Ray received, inclusion in the article is merited, in my opinion - but due weight needs to be applied, and excessive detail is probably best avoided. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Vikash Maharaj (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pandit Vikash Maharaj is world fame Sarod Player from India. His biography contents very less amount of lines regarding this great work in World Music and Indian Classical Music. Prabhash Maharaj has edited and provided all accurate information regarding him. Thanks

Shrutinagvanshi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrutinagvanshi ( talk • contribs) 09:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

You are free of course to contribute to the article and expand it (if I'm understanding correctly). This noticeboard is for reporting issues with problematic material in biographies. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 17:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Biographies should be the truth (good and bad). Someone keeps deleting the "Controversy" section supported by factual public documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bstrdsox04 ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLPPRIMARY, court documents are not permissible. If you continue to edit war at the article you will be blocked from editing. Giant Snowman 16:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

To expand on and clarify what Giant is saying, "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.... Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies."-- Epeefleche ( talk) 18:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

A controversial religious figure, target of both fanboys and gross BLP violations, needs help and additional eyes.

There may be a relatively decent version somewhere in the history if someone could take a look.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

If a band once played for the 90's-era Rock for Choice concert, which raised money for pro-choice causes, is it appropriate to note on both BLP and band articles that "between 1991 and 2001 Chris Cornell and Soundgarden supported abortion"? I contend that this strays a tad into activism, and that being pro-choice isn't necessarily a notable characteristic of an artist or a band, unless one or both are well-known activists for the cause. I'd also note that the user who made these edits cited a highly-partisan Rock For Life website in this edit as the rationale for inclusion, some sort of shaming and calling out list. Tarc ( talk) 12:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Pro-choice and pro-abortion are mutually exclusive. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 14:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source that says exactly that, sure. Otherwise it's original research and the answer is no. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 14:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It might be worth including if a reliable source makes that exact quote, but my gut feel would be that being pro-choice doesn't necessarily make one "pro-abortion", which does sound like a bit of a veiled insult that is unsuitable for a BLP. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 07:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC).

• Chris Joss (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For the ambitious-minded, here's an ever-lengthening bio that contains no sources, though it includes everything the subject's ever done, high school band, physical ailments and all. In short, all the stuff only someone very closely associated with him would know or care about. Where to begin cutting..... I'd nominate this for deletion, but there appears to be some claim to notability, with an album well-reviewed at Allmusic. Thanks, JNW ( talk) 21:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

F. King Alexander (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Diff: [89] "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." User Pokey5945 repeatedly posts link on talk page of BLP F. King Alexander to an individual's blog (which the user calls an "online book"). The blog is libellous and directly violates Verifiability standards. The maintainer of the blog also is involved in a significant off-wiki dispute; the author of the "online book" is suing the subject of the article: http://www.daily49er.com/news/2011/09/05/fea-professor-chair-sue-university-for-6-million/#.Ud980UGTgWk

Talk Page for Oxford Round Table (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has the exact same issue. The Oxford Round Table is a conference run by the father of F. King Alexander. Users Bahooka and Pokey5945 are engaging in an edit war in concert (or are the same user with different names) in an attempt to defame F. King Alexander and his entire family. Aragorn8392 ( talk)

True, the "book" probably can't be used as a source -- though we can only come to that conclusion if we discuss it properly (e.g. on the appropriate talk pages). I'm glad, though, that you provided the Daily49er source -- that one is usable. The ORT and the Alexander family have been criticized for years (with coverage of that criticism in entirely reputable sources) -- and to the extent that the criticism involves true claims then it is not libelous. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 22:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The "book" should not be discussed as a source on the Talk page of a BLP. "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page...Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources...self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." ^[4] -- Aragorn8392 ( talk) 23:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The Thug book fails WP:BLPSPS and should not be used in the article. No opinion on the talk page and if that violates WP:BLP. The large paragraph on ORT may also be WP:UNDUE considering the article size and the significant other aspects of the article subject's life, not to mention that the references given do not even mention Alexander's name. Bahooka ( talk) 23:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Recently it has been brought to my attention that some defamatory changes have been made to a Wikipedia page describing me and my work .. I want to know how to remove these odious comments and to set things straight — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.137.132 ( talk) 23:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The article in question, Bernie Warren was vandalized by anonymous users, it has been fixed. However, in reading through the article I have to question the notability of the subject, so I have suggested that it be deleted as it does not IMO meet the project's notability guidelines. Tarc ( talk) 00:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Verifiable articles regarding Leather's history of sockpuppeting are constantly being removed by editors, claiming there is "consensus" that those columns aren't valid. However, the sources are newspaper blogs written by professionals, which corresponds to WP's policy perfectly. These articles have also been included in other articles here and here. Truthteller88 ( talk) 14:07, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

An individual has, on seeral occassions, posted incorrect and misleading information regarding Sen. Sheheen's Vincent Sheheen position on gay marriage and marijuana leagalization -- claiming he supports both.. The "source" provided does not support the claim made and numerous legitimate sources can be found explicitly disproving the statement. I believe these comments continue to be listed to mislead the voting public and hurt Sen. Sheheen's campaign for governor.

The offending comment has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.188.201.16 ( talk) 14:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. The first source directly contradicts what was added to the article, and the second source is a "joke" story and thus not acceptable for supporting a controversial claim about a living person. I've watchlisted the article to see if IP-hopping problem editor comes back for a third attempt. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 14:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Jenny McCarthy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article needs more eyes. For example doesn't this content (below) off topic or at the very least classic coatrack?

• The BMJ published a 2011 article by journalist Brian Deer, based on information uncovered by Freedom of Information legislation after the British General Medical Council (GMC) inquiry into allegations of misconduct against Wakefield that led to him being struck-off from the medical register (unable to practice medicine in the UK) and his articles retracted, stating that Wakefield had planned a venture to profit from the MMR vaccine scare.[57][58][59][60]
• Parental concerns over vaccines have led to decreased immunization rates and increased incidence of measles, a highly contagious and sometimes deadly disease[61] and whooping cough. Neil Cameron, a historian who specializes in the history of science, writing for The Montreal Gazette labeled the controversy a "failure of journalism" that resulted in unnecessary deaths, saying that The Lancet should not have published a study based on "statistically meaningless results" from only 12 cases and that a grapevine of worried parents and "nincompoop" celebrities fueled the widespread fears.[62]

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You're right, all of that is nothing more than WP:COATRACK material by people who are (perhaps understandably) angry at Mrs. McCarthy for her views on vaccines. That said, it would take a coalition of administrators, bureaucrats, Superman and his little doggy to get all that off the article. I can't even begin to imagine the quagmire that you'd be getting into if you removed all that. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 00:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually I'm not sure there's a problem here, since our policy requires that pseudoscientific views (such as the ones in McCarthy's ideas) must be "clearly described as such" and that "an explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included". Perhaps this could have been done more tersely, but it needs to be done to maintain neutrality and avoid a coatrack for anti-vax views, surely? Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 15:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that it's irresistible for some people to put an enormous amount of effort to prove the subject wrong by using material that is not directly unrelated to the subject. And it's those same editors that turn into fearless edit warriors when you try to excise the material from the article, policy or no policy. It's one of Wikipedia's favorite systemic biases. Call it anti-vaccine, Scientology, creationism, etc. They must be proven wrong at all costs, otherwise the article is not "balanced", but obviously that's what creates the coatrack to begin with. And obvious coatracks in those types of topics are gingerly overlooked by everyone. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 04:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following. Isn't the problem here not that JM is being shown to have a fringe view (which policy requires), but that it is being done with maximum overkill and taking too much space. One wikilinked sentence would do the job wouldn't it? Alexbrn ^{talk| contribs| COI} 08:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The wikipedia bio says that she is still married to "Alan Horwitz", but her IMDB bio ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0287071/bio) says: "Alan Skip' Horwits' (21 April 1980 - 21 November 1983)(divorced)". Can someone fact check and correct as needed: married or not? "Horwitz" or "Horwits"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.76.162 ( talk) 22:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

IMDb is not a reliable source. The paragraph about her personal life had been unsourced since 2009, and nothing else in the article to support any of that, so it's been removed. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 00:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Russell Blaylock (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject of this article posted at the help desk earlier complaining that it was "inaccurate and libelous". He's evidently controversial and it would be helpful if someone with more expertise could take a look. Thanks SmartSE ( talk) 22:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice if they could specify which parts are "libelous". As far as I can see all that is sourced correctly. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 00:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Rupert Taylor (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Biography about an academic (reported to OTRS) that has recently come under heavy editing because of a "scandal" over the subject's dismissal from the institution where he taught. There are 8 references in the article, 7 of them dealing with the dismissal. The case still seems to be unresolved, so the "courtesy" of not including issues that are legally unresolved (e.g., a DUI that we omit until the subject has been sentenced or there is a plea, etc) would apply, except that the coverage in this case seems to be sufficiently widespread to include, and I wouldn't characterize the material as undue weight (unless we count the citations of course). I also have some reservations about some of those sources. Thoughts? § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 23:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Rand Paul (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editors of this board are invited to participate in the following RfC. [90] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 23:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

defamatory or libelous information, without sourcing, about alleged events keep being edited into the Ruslan Nurtdinov article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.192.106.149 ( talk) 00:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed as irrelevant gossip, undue weight, etc. If he gets convicted of something we'll make sure to make a note of it. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 15:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The Christopher Larkin you have listed is not correct. Please check imdb.com, Christopher Larkin (ll) as well as Hollywood Reporter The 100 casting notice for accurate bio information. Thanks!

Pete Larkin (Chris' Dad) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.145.247 ( talk) 15:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems as though an editor is performing a hatchet job at the Paul Tanaka (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article using sources that do not conform to WP:RS: [91]. — Myasuda ( talk)

Scruffysarge and Rockyboy7 appear to be the same person. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 03:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps 201.171.250.243 ( talk · contribs · logs) too. — Myasuda ( talk) 01:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)