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

I came across an article about Carl Freer and Tiger Telematics about a month ago and recommended Freer for deletion. The article asserted a claim of him being a criminal but his actions are similar to thousands of others and did not seem to amount to WP:CRIME. With the exception User:BabbaQ who voted to keep (although did not really elaborate how it meets WP:GNG), the other reasons for keeping the article left by editors were not based on guidelines. After the article was kept, I edited it to more conform to BLP guidelines for neutrality, original research, and verifiability (at least in my opinion). The edits were reversed yesterday by user User:Universaladdress who asserted that the content I added and removed was already “approved” and from reliable sources. However, the information removed was WP:UNDUE and the information I added was something other editors left out when introducing negative information.

While I do not care about Tiger Telematics or Gizmundo as they are company pages, BLPs are different and need to be strictly adhered to. While Freer and Erikkson do not seem like saints, they also do not appear to rise to the level of WP:CRIME. If they did meet notability for criminals, we could double the size of Wikipedia’s database with criminals who would qualify as well. Also, after the Freer article was kept, a User:Universaladdress requested page protection which was applied to the page. Page protection should be requested for persistence vandalism, not because someone disagrees with an article being recommended for deletion. This is poor use of page protection in my opinion.

So, long story short, there seems to be some major BLP violations with Eriksson and Freer. I would request that it be looked at by those familiar with BLP guidelines in order to ensure that they are being followed with these articles. The talk pages show much contention among editors who are either trying to heavily weight the articles against these guys, as well as other editors who want to whitewash the article. Looks like something that has gone on for years and will go on for years until someone steps in. I would love to do it, but leaving it up to those who deal with issues every day is probably the best. Also appears that people are either using multiple accounts on the talk pages or people are coming to Wikipedia solely for the purpose of these pages, which makes it dangerous as they are here to put specific information into the articles that they want, not putting information in objectively.

Please take a look at the following for additional information:

1. BLP violation post on Carl Freer talk page made by me on 1-17-14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carl_Freer#BLP_violation_and_neutral_point_of_view_

2. Edit comments on Freer that explain the edits I did to the article a few days back. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Carl_Freer&action=history

3. Edit history of Stefan Erikkson showing the edits I made a few days ago http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Stefan_Eriksson&action=history. Also notice that it appears people do not care about the Eriksson article as much as the Freer article as no edits were made since I made them to Eriksson.

4. Talk page of User: Universaladdress explaining my reason for edits to these articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Universaladdress I should have assumed more good faith and will take the heat for that as I should have developed better communications; however, the history of the talk page for these articles showed me that all editors

So, either what I read here at BLP is wrong, it is being interpreted differently that how it is written, I simply don’t understand the policy even though it is pretty clearly written, or there is a major BLP violation with these articles. If am wrong, please let me know so that I understand the policy going forward. I am also completely open to taking my lumps from more experienced editors for not assuming as good as faith as I should have. And, ultimately, I would like to see Wikipedia to be used as an encyclopedia, not a platform for airing out complaints about people they don’t like.-- JakenBox ( talk) 03:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the primary-sourced stuff about RICO doesn't belong - WP:BLPPRIMARY clearly prohibits using court documents, etc. as sources in BLPs. However, if this person is notable (and per the AfD decision, he is), he is primarily notable for his involvement with a massively-dubious game console that is one of the most famous gaming business failures of all time, and thus there's going to be some significant negative slant to the coverage. That may be so, but that appears to have a significant and fair basis in the reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. AfD 1 resulted in no-consensus with AfD 2 being kept based on votes. If you look at the discussion, there does not appear to be anyone giving a reason to keep the article other than non-policy reasons. What confuses me is why Eriksson is being mentioned as a "business partner" when the reference doesn't state that they were business partners. They both were higher ups in the company, but if we include Eriksson in the article for Freer and vice versa, then all the directors should be included in the articles. Introducing information about Eriksson in Freer's article and vice versa only slants the information to them being co-conspirators and criminals together. The other part is the sentence that states, "Freer was also engaged in an abortive attempt to relaunch the Gizmondo, claiming a potential launch in the 3rd quarter of 2008;[7] however, this never occurred." The reference doesn't say that the potential launch was aborted and stating that it "never occurred" can be logically concluded since you don't see it on the shelves at Wal-Mart, but a BLP should include information from the references, not what can be concluded. Finally, if they are criminals, there is no way that they meet WP:CRIME. The events that they would be known for do not have a lasting effect like what would be needed to support notability. Basically, it looks like someone created both articles as attack pages. They are interweaved along with the pages for Tiger Telematics and Gizmundo with information that is weighted too heavily based on sources. -- JakenBox ( talk) 03:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Your edits to Stefan Eriksson are all appropriate, in my opinion - removing either unsourced/dubiously-sourced material or stuff which is completely irrelevant (his girlfriend being pulled over, etc.). Nice work there. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 06:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea how to address Eriksson any further. The majority of the references are in Swedish and Google translate is very poor. Thinking of just stripping everything that isn't referenced. -- JakenBox ( talk) 03:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Back again. Seems like there is a single editor who insists on adding information in violation of BLP guidelines. Unsourced information is being added as well as information that is not in the source provided. Not sure where to go to request that this be reviewed, but would like someone to help and take a look if there is an interest. Thank you again. -- JakenBox ( talk) 16:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems like some people are messing up with this page. I found Adolph Hitler's picture under the Yevhen_Konoplyanka, I edited it by erasing it but after that I noticed a lot of abusive staff written in players description. I really hope someone adresses this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.250.122 ( talk) 21:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a vandalism issue more than a true BLP issue. I've rolled back all edits made today to fix more of the problems. — C.Fred ( talk) 21:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Rich Priske

there are no articles , interviews or sources for most of this. it reads like a personal resume of a nobody written by same said nobody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.107.4 ( talk) 03:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

AFD is that way. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 20:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry if this is not the right place to give some reports. I came across the article about Roy Suryo and I want to give some comments about the article. This article has many irrelevant information without credible sources and probably too much boasting. He also is not an IT expert and have no proof of becoming one. He has no accomplishments in IT area even in Indonesia. He is simply a Democratic party politician.

On these accomplishments:

* Analyzing Sound Recording Telephone President Habibie & Jakgung Andi Ghalib
* Analyze Recording Meeting of the Bank Bali scandal Cessie
* Pioneering Method of Searching via BTS and CDRI for Investigation
* Analyze and cliche Photo Wahid & Aryanti Boru Sitepu
* Provide Technical Referral Tracking Phone Fugitive Tommy Suharto
* Speaker of Indonesia in Expert - Meeting Palais des Nations (UN Headquarters), Geneva, Switzerland
* Board of Experts - ITE Team Bill (now Act No. - ITE. 11/2008)
* Expert witness in various cases involving Communication Technology & Digital Photography
* Expert Witness & Broadcasting Law Judicial Commission on Constitutional Court Case
etc

There are no so called "IT specialist" expertise on it. And although I doubt that these are all his accomplishments, I will not leverage more about these issues and want to discuss about the IT since I do not have any proofs.

As I do not want to be a hater of him, I really want to tell that Roy Suryo is really famous in Indonesia, not for his accomplishments, but for his controversies on several occasions (such as identifying some porn photos) as you can search his name on google search engine. So this page maybe can be categorized as a "boasting page".

Thank you very much if you can consider my opinions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randz888 ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed some of the unsourced personal information, puffery and badly-written content. As a cabinet level (I suppose) member of a sovereign government, the subject may meet at least WP:GNG and/or WP:POLITICIAN, but you are of course free to nominate the article for deletion. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 16:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Rick Joyner (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The whole article is worshiping him for his good work and worshiping the church. There are tons of links to sites owned by them to scam google I assume. Every citation links to an website owned by either his church or himself. This article is of very poor quality and should be at least flagged or removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.255.5 ( talk) 17:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the article is especially bad. It should probably be nominated for deletion. There doesn't appear to be secondary source coverage of Joyner, or if there is, it's not obvious from a google search. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I contested the prod and made a start at fixing the article. I believe he's more than notable, but that the article had been destroyed by COI nonsense. There's not much national coverage of him, but there's tons of coverage in the North Carolina state-level papers. Anyway, take a look at it now before making any hasty decisions.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 20:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Now an IP is rolling it back one click at a time. Sigh...— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 15:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Riza Aziz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has had multiple restorations and reedits of a controversy section that appears to violate BLP policy.

See diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Riza_Aziz&diff=592796737&oldid=592640199 and many others.

The material which is continuously being replaced is sourced poorly or not at all, is conjecture/original research, and is shaded. In addition, to the extent it is sourced, it uses non-credibly blogs, one of which is is the subject of news reports saying that attorneys for the subject have sent a demand letter for retraction. See: Deadline.com Letter to Sarawak Report

Notable is that no other sources carry these same claims. I have attempted to negotiate edits in this article, which the editor ignores, and made a RfC as well. But the continued editing is so defamatory that I believe it goes here. Thank you. Versaedit ( talk) 21:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Not even remotely acceptable. Synthesis and original research, referencing a single unreliable source. Watching in case it gets inserted again. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 00:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Siobhan Williams

Someone keeps REPEATEDLY inserting a birthdate of Jan. 10 1990 for this actress, which is inaccurate.

--One of the links they use as a reference ( https://twitter.com/siobhanw_/status/421523659916734465 ) is no longer valid.

And the other article they source ( http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/08/10/hell-on-wheels-season-3-premiere-anson-mount/) contains inaccurate, unverified information. This is not the actress' correct age. This birthdate in fact is contradicted in this article: ( http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/09/16/page-6---young-calgary-actress-landing-the-roles) According to this, she is 22 now.

IN CONCLUSION: as the articles all contradict one another, this actress' age is unavailable and unknown to the general public and thus should be prohibited from being uploaded onto the information page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siobhanwilliams ( talk • contribs) 04:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Since the information was inadequately sourced, I removed the dates. If an accurate source comes along, we can add it back later. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 05:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Part 2

(copied from the article's talk page)

I have removed the subject's birthday per WP:BLPPRIVACY and per WP:V and per common sense. Tiller54 claims that this dead twitter link is a reliable source as to the subject's DOB. I disagree. Furthermore he is using this article from entertainment weekly verifies the DOB, when in fact the article talks about a 23-year old actress, and this age is attributed to Anson Mount, an actor on the show. Hardly a reliable source. If this is not enough, this request on the BLP/N board, (presumably from the subject herself) complaining about the DOB being in the article. I can't verify if that is Williams, but it doesn't matter. Someone doesn't want this information in the article, and since we can't verify it from a reliable source, we keep it out of the article until a RS can be found to add it back in. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 17:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Wholesale deletion of a long-standing section 'Career' is wrong. The previous section relied on the person's own blog which was unsourced and had clear differences with other material. The revised one was sourced using primary inline sources; the only contentious part was use of a secondary source pippabartolotti.info, which could be rectified if necessary by referring to its primary sources. In any case this is preferable to relying on the person's own blog (as Ref. 1). Without any Career section - and no Early-personal-life as is common - the biography is denuded of significant content.

As the wholesale deletion is just negative, I'm asking for a discussion on how and what can be restored. Max Wallis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxwallis ( talk • contribs) 09:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

As of 2nd February, no editor is ready to defend the wholesale deletion of the "career' section of a well-referenced biography. Do I presume it was done by a Wales section editor who doesn't watch this page? comment added by Maxwallis ( talk • contribs) 11.42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Zelinski

This article is a violation of NPOV and V.

Elizabeth Zelinski wrote this article:. "...these findings translate across MY comprehensive longitudinal study of aging (the Long Beach Longitudinal Study) and a nationally representative sample of older adults." As with all autobiographical accounts, there is definitely a bias in the information reported.

Page 395 of the book, Everyday Cognition in Adulthood and Late Life, edited by Leonard W. Poon et. al, has the following chart:

Table 22.2. Some examples of metamemory questionnaires that were designed for, or have been applied to, life-span developmental issues:

Questionnaire |Documentation 1. Memory Questionnaire (MQ)| Perlmutter (1978) 2. Memory Functioning Questionnaire (MFQ) |Gilewski et al. (1983); Zelinski, Gilewski, et al. (1980) 3. Subjective Memory Questionnaire (SMQ) |Bennet-Levy & Powell (1980) 4. Short Inventory of Memory Experiences (SIME) |Chaffin & Herrmann (1983); Herrmann (1984) 5. Metamemory in Adulthood (MIA) |Dixon & Hultsch (1983a, 1983b, 1984); Hertzog et al. (1985)

It is Ms. Zelinski's own opinion that she was "the first to develop a comprehensive standardized questionnaire of self-reported memory to determine whether people's beliefs about their memory are echoed in their objective performance." The SMQ, in wide use today, was developed at the same time as the MFQ, and the MQ was developed two years before those. I also think her colleagues would disagree that she, and she alone, was the first to develop the questionnaire.

If the only thing notable about Ms. Zelinski is her part in developing the MFQ, should not the other colleagues also have their own respective pages? Or should the MFQ not have its own page? It's my opinion that neither Ms. Zelinski or her colleagues are notable enough for an encylopedia entry here. Information on the MFQ, MQ, SMQ, SIME, and MIA might need a page, or could be merged into any one of numerous articles on memory and recollection.

http://books.google.com/books?id=seKqGhnkSg0C&pg=PA395&lpg=PA395&dq=%22Memory+Functioning+Questionnaire%22+vs+%22subjective+memory+questionnaire%22&source=bl&ots=yUSgLXy7Wy&sig=UrVoi4O6vnBN9NeJuj_h2PTcnWs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VdvqUpu8F8OayQGLoYHwBA&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Memory%20Functioning%20Questionnaire%22%20vs%20%22subjective%20memory%20questionnaire%22&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.37.71.96 ( talk) 23:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I am writing regarding a user Pokey5945 repeatedly violating Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policy. A look at their Talk page shows this is not the first complaint they've gotten for exactly the same behavior on other pages.

In the section titled New Haven Black Panther Trial, they have cobbled together a variety of historically discredited information in a concerted effort to defame Ericka Huggins. In particular they seem determined to claim Huggins participated in the torture of a young man--which is simply not true. She was not charged with this crime, she was acquitted of the crime she was accused of, and Pokey5945's determination to imply otherwise is not a neutral point of view, is not verifiable and is extremely damaging to Huggins, a college professor.

Additionally, since they have repeatedly undone any attempts to add additional facts to it feels like this is part of a concerted campaign on their part. There have been complaints by others that Pokey5945 has manipulated other pages in a similar way as well--please review their Talk page. I would like to know at what point a user gets blocked from a page. Even aside from the damage being done to Ericka Huggins, one user should not have the right to block the development of a page, and undo additions of historically relevant material that is backed by verifiable facts, not hearsay & contrived evidence.

Please let me know what can be done about this. Thank you for your time. Politigrafica ( talk) 02:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Politigrafica

In December, the office of Kevin Ranker (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) made some requests on the talk page. These have not been actioned. Could some kind soul please pop along and have a look, and either action them or explain why not? Any decently thoughtful response will be appreciated. Thanks Guy ( Help!) 10:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Francesca Capaldi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a minor about 9 years old. Her birth date was added to her article using messages from two different verified twitter accounts of her co-workers on a TV series as references. The info added is most likely correct. Her official show bio posted on a Disney site [1] does not release that info. I removed the info from the article per my understanding of WP:BLPPRIVACY which states that this type of info requires "sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object". The twitter account, while verified, are from other people and as self-published sources are reliable for info about themselves, not others. On the other hand, the existence of those twitter postings should reasonably be known to the guardians of this minor and the fact that they are still there may lead to the inference that they do not object to releasing the birth info. This is a marginal call and I would like some input from others. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 14:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it as "marginal" at all. To me, you quite clearly did the right thing. Joefromrandb ( talk) 07:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Is now being used as a coatrack about Larry Craig introducing speculation not made in the film, and weakly sourced as well. [2] It is not claimed to be related to the film proper, and is simply an example of a WP:BLP violation as being a contentious claim made about a living person here. The edit summary Frank discusses this as part of the hypocrisy) does not allow a claim of fact to be made without a strong reliable source for the claim of fact. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 23:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep the 1989 stuff out of the article. Larry Craig is a major part of the film, and Barney Frank is a major interview subject, but this 1989 bit about Craig gunning for Frank (pushing for more severe punishment) is not in the film. Binksternet ( talk) 00:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Steve Stockman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've removed a lot of content from this BLP that was cited only to Stockman's press releases and that was generally non-neutral in tone. [3] These changes were reverted. I would appreciate input from experienced editors. GabrielF ( talk) 04:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Now this looks like a legal threat from 1houstonian.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 04:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that's a legal threat - he's saying someone else has libeled the subject, that there is a legal case around that and he doesn't "want that to enter Wikipedia". Regardless, we shouldn't be allowing problematic SPAs to act as if they own articles, which seems to be the case here. There's obviously a COI issue, so he should be requesting changes, not making them himself. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 04:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Carol Bush (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A few eyes on this one just in case - it came in through OTRS and I just fired up the chainsaw to remove a lot of synthesis and primary sources. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 15:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

After a long period of relative peace, this page has been repeatedly edited by anonymous IP addresses and suspected sockpuppets, often in an effort to expand the "controversies" section with ad hominem and unsourced attacks. In the latest round, an editor has disclosed my home address in an effort to discredit my efforts to keep things encyclopedic. It's been a tedious exercise at best.

The subject of the page is controversial in local politics, and deserves due consideration against libelous and slanderous edits.

Edward Vielmetti ( talk) 20:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• James R. Fouts (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see [4]. Thx. 88.104.24.150 ( talk) 23:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

IP is removing well-cited, contentious content and citing WP:BLP. There could of course potentially be balance issues if the article were nothing but a laundry list of cited accusations, but the wholesale removal of incidents that are reliably sourced to have resulted in civil settlements against the subject and extensive discussion in secondary sources looks more like whitewashing than holding up policy. Incidentally, this article does have a substantial history of blatant BLP violations, so the more eyes on it the better. VQuakr ( talk) 00:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you're misrepresenting the situation slightly. 88.104.24.150's edits here make perfect sense and I've been saying so on the talk page too. By the way, you can't have "settlements against" people, you have "settlements with" people. You can't draw negative conclusions from a settlement, you really, really, really, really can't. People's lawyers tell them to settle all the time just to save time and money. It doesn't mean a thing. Maybe you should get that kind of thing straight before you go adding stuff like this to a BLP, eh?— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 00:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent point about the settlement phrasing. 88.104.24.150's edits are good faith and I agree with about 75% of them from today, I just think they may have overshot a little. My previous post should have made that clear. VQuakr ( talk) 00:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Kyle Chapman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Someone who may be the subject periodically edits this in what I see as a significantly POV manner. I've already reverted them once and could be perceived as having a vested interest, so I'd like someone else to take a look. Stuartyeates ( talk) 08:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

An unusual situation here, for a man who is alleged to be both dead and living. I removed the following from this article:

"Since then Vice has looked into the death turning up an active PO Box in Tim Dog's name, and a phone call made to a number of his where it was assumed he answered, the following day the phone had been disconnected. ^[1]"

"Turning up an active PO Box" seems misleading, as the article says: "...there is still an active PO Box in Tim Dog's name". The differences may be subtle, but I feel they're important. The former sounds like he's using this PO Box, while the latter doesn't imply as much; after all, a dead man can't cancel his PO Box. Much worse is the "phone call" issue. The Vice article says: "Somebody called his phone and he answered". Yet the source they use for this claim is a link to a You Tube video. The video is an audio-only excerpt from "Conspiracy Worldwide Radio". There is no way of knowing who the person who answered the phone is or what number was dialed. Furthermore, the voice on the video emphatically states: "We're not at all, in any way, insinuating that Tim Dog is alive". Finally, the sentence: "Somebody called his phone and he answered", is not a statement of fact by the article's author, but rather a quote from a man named " J-Zone". Some will no doubt argue "V not T" and "if the source uses it, so can we". I would contest this; if our source is using an obviously shoddy source of its own, then we should look for another source, especially when possible WP:BLP issues are a concern.

I would also like to ask for clarification as to whether we should presume this man to be living. It's a very odd case; his death was reported by reliable sources, but all of them were using a single obituary from a very questionable source, that has since been taken down. On the other hand, presuming him to be living would seem to presume him guilty of the alleged offense of faking his own death; a strange way to violate WP:BLP. Whatever the case, we should make a decision, as the article currently begins: "...Tim Dog was...", while listing him as 46 years old in the info box. Joefromrandb ( talk) 04:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• If what you say is correct about the sources relying on a dubious obit, we should presume him to be alive, thus BLP still applies. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 05:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

To expand on this, we should presume him alive in terms of the applicability of BLP policy. The article itself needs to avoid making definitive statements as to whether he is dead or alive until the situation becomes clearer. That will make the wording tricky in places, but I'm sure there are ways to do it. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion, Andy, and I have a few ideas. I'll have a go at it after I catch 40 winks. Joefromrandb ( talk) 09:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this. I've just been short on free time. Ten inches of snow and a snow blower sans gas don't make a good combination. I should be able to work on it at some point today. Joefromrandb ( talk) 12:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

At Tofy Mussivand (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) a pov editor continually edits stating that the subject is Kurdish, which is unsourced. He's pov editing across a number of articles, changing names, quotations, etc and doesn't respond to talk page notices. Dougweller ( talk) 21:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorted, editor blocked. Dougweller ( talk) 11:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The subject seems to still lack notability after being marked in November 2013. Phrasing of the article makes it seem pretty clear that the subject is the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.253.76 ( talk) 23:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Try WP:PROD or WP:AFD. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 00:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of nominating it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Weinstein. Stalwart 111 00:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Please consider participating at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Those_Woody_Allen_allegations.2C_again, a discussion centering on BLP issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 21:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that your concerns are well warranted. I've added a sub-sub-subsection at [5] (adding the word "children" to the subsection header), which I think is a balanced way to do that in a way that's consistent with BLP. It adds two sentences, one on the Dylan Farrow open letter and one on Allen's recent vigorous denial. Coretheapple ( talk) 08:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ronald Weitzer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rjw99 ( talk · contribs)

Concern that this has been largely written by the subject or other COI accounts. Mostly supported by primary sources, with lengthy descriptions of subject's views, publications, etc. Further concerns that editor is self-citing in multiple articles; he may be an authority on the subject, but this sort of copious self-referencing is nearly always problematic. JNW ( talk) 15:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing defamatory in this page, however I would like the heading to be changed to reflect my proper name, which is Daniel Landin, not Dan Landin.

Please can you alter the heading for accuracy?

Many Thanks

Daniel Landin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.25.81 ( talk) 18:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. -- John Reaves 18:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Currently only a redirect, it can be regarded as highly controversial to redirect to the accused instead of to her mother. Related discussions ongoing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Those_Woody_Allen_allegations.2C_again, Talk:Woody_Allen#The_Open_Letter_From_Dylan_Farrow.2C_as_fact.2C_was_removed, and above. Suggestions? -- Trofobi ( talk) 19:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Join the conversation at one of the two place you've already linked instead starting a new one here. -- John Reaves 19:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I recently edited Joseph Hall to include a link to Murder of Jeff Hall. I'd appreciate other eyes on this change, given the sensitivity. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 23:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I relocated it to a new See also section - probably works better there.-- ukexpat ( talk) 17:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Irving Kirsch (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There should be an addition. Prof Kirsch also says that for mild anxiety and depression the herbal remedy St.John's Worth is proven to be a useful as any anti- depressants, with very small side-effects indeed. Obviously that is not good news for Big Pharma- who are trying to have this herbal remedy listed as a medicine- so they can exploit it better

best regards annegret odwyer

I assume you mean St. John's wort? See WP:MEDRS. Wikipedia does not give equal time to pseudoscience and medical quackery. Joefromrandb ( talk) 13:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I am the subject of this entry.

I simply wanted to offer the mention of a book published since this entry was compiled:

Out of Print: Newspapers, Journalism and the Business of News in the Digital Age by George Brock (published in 2013 by Kogan Page)

Thank you for your attention

George Brock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.40.68.46 ( talk) 14:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

added Collect ( talk) 14:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail was recently discussed at RSN and was roundly (but not unanimously) trashed as a reliable source. On this BLP article, another user wishes to use this article to source "He lived in Glasgow for the first eight years of his life", "Barrowman recalls his family as loving, but strict and mindful of etiquette: always polite and respectful towards others." and "Comparing the two countries where he was raised, Barrowman concludes: "Scotland gave us, as a family, closeness; America gave us the get-up-and-go." The other editor (I think) acknowledges that this is an unreliable source, but sees it as a case of WP:SELFSOURCE. My own view (I had to remove a whole lot of much worse sludge sourced to even worse publications than the Mail, and warn the user when they restored the bad sources, so I think they are kind of sore at me) is that, while these are not the worst things to say about someone, we should probably try to find better sources for them or leave them out. I believe that using SELFSOURCE as an end-run around WP:BLPSOURCES like this is a little disingenuous; if a source is unreliable for BLPs because of its reputation for poor fact-checking, then we should probably not be using it at all. Does this article need to be revised? Does WP:SELFSOURCE need to be clarified? Do we need a proper RfC on blacklisting the Mail for BLPs? Could we compromise and say something like "According to a 2008 interview published in the Daily Mail..." What do you think? -- John ( talk) 14:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a tabloid (I mean it is!) and as such I'm fairly sure it falls outside of what we think of as reliable sources, especially for BLPs. But perhaps an RFC wouldn't hurt, and it could set a precedent. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 00:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not the best source for any contentious claims, but it meets WP:RS and has about the same record with regard to press complaints as other UK newspapers. Personally, I suggest that BLPs should require multiple independent sources for all contentious claims. Collect ( talk) 13:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Well that's just silly. How is this sort of thing supposed to burnish your (ostensible) credentials as a "strong defender of BLP" & whatnot? Really, where does this come from? The Daily Mail is trash, and anyone who says otherwise shouldn't be working on BLPs. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 13:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Wowee --- when in doubt jump in with ad homs! I would note that my position on contentious claims requiring multiple sources has been iterated a few times now, so I find your leap her to be outré. And the fact you "know" a major publication is "trash" means little -- its record is pretty much the same as other UK papers, where even the Guardian this past year was found to have committed an egregious breach of standards. Cheers -- now shut the heck up when it comes to making gratuitous personal attacks. Collect ( talk) 14:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Collect, it's unwise of you to bring up this claim again. When I asked you last year to provide supporting evidence and you couldn't, you got most upset when I called you on it. Are you absolutely sure you still think that "its record is pretty much the same as other UK papers"? Have you recently discovered evidence that this is true? If not, I suggest you modify this statement. -- John ( talk) 07:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Just on the issue of "tabloids" - note that in the UK, "tabloid" is a size format and says nothing about content -- The Times is a tabloid format newspaper but no one would argue that it is not a reliable source. The issue of the unreliability or otherwise of The Daily Mail as a source isn't related to its tabloid format.-- ukexpat ( talk) 17:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No indeed, so why bring it up? -- John ( talk) 21:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

If anyone is indeed confused between tabloid (newspaper format) and tabloid journalism, it is the latter that we are forbidden to use on BLPs and not the former. -- John ( talk) 07:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

John, this has been discussed already, several times in fact. I'll reiterate once again for your beneift:

1. The archives of BLP/N and RS/N indicate that no "blacklist" exists for The Daily Mail. I must conclude that your attempt to remove this source from Wikipedia is unprecedented and without any basis, such as consensus or policy.
2. Various discussions on this topic have indicated that when a notable interviewer conducts an interview with a celebrity on an uncontroversial topic, and when this content is not disputed, editors may use this source in an article about the subject. That is the case here.
3. John, your edit history on this subject demonstrates that you have an opinion about the use of reliable sources that differs greatly from the Wikipedia community. Those discussions indicate that Wikipedia consensus and the relevant policies and guidelines are at odds with your interpretation of how we evaluate sources for reliability.
4. At no point have you commented on the author of the source in question, or the subject of the source, or the accuracy of the source, or the currency of the source, nor the authoritativeness of the source. Instead, you have assumed a priori that the Daily Mail is always unreliable. This opinion that is not shared by the Wikipedia community nor by any accurate interpretation of policies and guidelines.
5. Unless a specific source is explicitly blacklisted and filtered, as an editor (and as an admin) you cannot personally remove those sources or prevent their use without evaluating each source on its merits based on the context of its use in each and every article.

I hope that explains the problem at hand and illustrates why the sources in question can be evaluated as reliable and are safe to use in this instance. Viriditas ( talk) 07:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I hope I can be considered uninvolved, I've never heard of Barrowman before and am quite new to BLP/N. The claim of... where Barrowman lived in his early childhood, his own opinion of his family and his own opinion of the two countries he grew up in... was apparently sourced from a personal interview of Barrowman. I don't think these claims are controversial, even if it was the Daily Mail which did the interviewing. Reading Barrowman's talk page, several quotes by John trouble me. I took out references to the Daily Record, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, Metro, The Sun, YouTube and Hello magazine. None of these are remotely suitable for supporting claims on a BLP. and Those relatively innocuous claims were sourced to the Daily Mail, and we cannot use this as a source on BLPs. Well, other than for YouTube, is there any policy to state that those sources are inappropriate for any use on any BLP? Were John's actions mandated by policy? BLPs apparently should be written "with regard for the subject's privacy" while considering "the possibility of harm". What harm is caused here? Is privacy violated by Barrowman's admissions in a interview? I don't see any. starship.paint ( talk | ctrb) 12:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If I may, let's be clear about something: The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for sensationalist claims, medical advice, or for saying that a obscure controversy happened (there's been articles where it's taken a minor incident and inflated it up to a huge scandal; one I remember is the "Baa, baa rainbow sheep" incident, where, apparently, a teacher was trying to teach children colours using the song, and the Daily Mail reinterpreted it as "Political correctness gone mad! Can't call sheep black!"). Like most newspapers, it also uncritically republishes a lot of press releases. However, that is not at all the same thing as saying "if someone is interviewed in the Daily Mail, the interview should be ignored. Newspapers are a source that have limits. Some newspapers we'll want to put firmer limits on than others. But an uncontroversial interview? That's well within the zone of competence. "Reliable Source" is not a binary state. Adam Cuerden ^{( talk)} 12:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Well indeed, and on that basis I let the more innocuous claims stand and brought the conversation here for clarification. But the statement that reliable source vs. unreliable source is not a binary choice cuts both ways. "Can we write something" is very much not the same question as "Should we write something?" If the Mail has made something up (as it is wont to do, and as many previous discussions have observed) about Barrowman, for example, and it is relatively innocuous (like the trivia about where he grew up), the subject is less likely to sue (which is how the Mail effects correction of its many inaccurate stories). This nevertheless still leaves the Wikipedia article stating a falsehood, not something I am wild about. So I would prefer to interpret WP:BLPSOURCES literally when it says we should not use tabloids on BLPs. I still maintain that if a claim is worth recording on Wikipedia, there will be a more reliable source which corroborates it. -- John ( talk) 17:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Your "literal" interpretation seems rather extreme. WP:BLPSOURCES: Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. Even if the Daily Mail is a tabloid, not every article it publishes should be regarded as tabloid journalism ( sensationalist or gossip). It seems to me that you are outright assuming that the statement by the Daily Mail due to the interview is a falsehood. So how many falsehoods has the Daily Mail published when they publish interviews? How about the interviewer / writer of the article, Jenny Johnston, do you have any evidence that she is unreliable? starship.paint ( talk | ctrb) 08:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your opinion. You take a very optimistic view of the journalism of a publication with a long track record of telling lies and being successfully sued for it. I think my interpretation is more in keeping with the principle of doing no harm that Wikipedia has always taken. -- John ( talk) 11:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Been considering where is best to draw attention to what I would call mostly a quality issue and also an issue where care needs to be taken, and that would benefit from oversight from neutral parties who television programme. He was asked about his views on homophobia, and the interviewer Brendan_O'Connor_(media_personality) pressed him to specifically name people he considered homophobic. O'Neill named John Waters (columnist) as well Breda O'Brien and conservative Catholic group The Iona Institute. This resulted in legal threats, and RTE removed the interview from their website and issued an apology.

Details of this Panti#RT.C3.89_Censorship_Controversy issue, have been added at length to the articles Panti, John Waters (columnist), and Breda O'Brien. A significant proportion of this has been added by one user Special:Contributions/Tbrambo, to all three articles. Tbrambo has a pretty clear agenda, not that particularly disagree with it but the quality could be a lot better and care and better sourcing is needed, I'd politely call it overenthusiasm. The writing is very conclusive understand how Wikipedia works and can take due care to head off any legal issues in advance. I'll try to summarize.

An Irish drag queen and businessperson Panti/Rory O'Neill was interviewed on a Saturday night for what is a fairly contentious issue, not as encyclopedic as perhaps it should be.

The biography on Panti could do with improvement* but the controversy is very relevant to that page and almost certainly belongs there [* The article has a "Trivia" section, relevant information poorly presented]. I'm editing from Ireland and I'm not sure I can be properly objective, and not get sucked into the article that needs careful monitoring. I only wanted to make a few edits to improve the quality but Tbrambo is acting like he owns the article rejecting an edit that turned a link into a properly formatted citation and named reference and then reusing it to bolster points made elsewhere in the article (and it was only restoring and fixing an earlier edit anyhow). (There was also poorly backed up hyperbole in the article, which isn't quite so glaring after adding a named reference to one the articles already referenced).

John Waters (columnist) is a newspaper columnist, it almost goes without saying that he is controversial at times, and aside from being verbose and a little presumptive it seems appropriate for the controversy to be conversed on his page. Legal types might want to monitor the page to make sure the wording is suitably careful. There appears to be substantial repetition from the Panti article, this is mostly a quality issue.

The article on Breda O'Brien also has a section on the controversy, there appears to be substantial repetition from the Panti article. The controversy is given nearly as much coverage as everything else in the article, it seems like undue emphasis, and brevity and a more cautious wording is what I'd suggest.

So maybe someone experience Wikipedia editors will look at it, maybe fix up the references with the fancy editing tools you have, and maybe keep an eye on the articles to make sure they do not overstate their case and risk legal issues. It think it is a storm in a teacup and I don't want to get sucked any further into it but there is need for improvement and oversight. -- 109.78.153.72 ( talk) 02:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

what a mess. while the instigating incident is indeed a storm in a teacup, the fact that it ended up in someone quitting their job and senators debating whether or not the public tv station should be handing out hush up money in settlements is bringing it to the point where it does matter. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The stuff already acknowledged by RTE to be improper should be excised, and for which damages were paid, -- Wikipedia should never be in the business of perpetuating slurs. Collect ( talk) 22:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"someone quitting their job" that is not an accurate reading of the situation. Mr. Waters has many jobs, writing primarily.

aside from that, the cleanup was far more expansive than I expected. the issue may need to be revisited, if more information comes out later. irish defamation law is strict, and RTE have lost badly before, the payments may yet turn out to be on best legal advice. -- 109.79.210.65 ( talk) 01:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

while irish defamation laws may be strict, they do not apply to Wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:BLP is stricter than the Irish laws. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The articles mentioned above have been consistently changed in order to downplay the element of homophobia accusations and simply say that a "controversy" occurred. This is both inaccurate and misleading. A vague controversy did not occur. The events have been explicitly documentary by many cited and reputable news organisations. The issue is over homophobia so it should be addressed as such for all involved. Those involved are Panti, John Waters, and Breda O'Brien. If someone is trying to conceal the fact that this is an issue over homophobia accusations, it should be easy to see that person's agenda. One of the central issues of controversy is the fact that RTÉ edited Rory O'Neill and paid money to those threatening legal action, so it does not make sense to say that just because RTÉ did something, that means it shouldn't be documented here! One of the central controversies of these events is the fact that RTÉ was wrong! If someone is trying to re-word articles to avoid the word homophobia, when the word homophobia is CENTRAL to the entire event, then it goes without saying, that that person is intent upon concealing information vital to the article. Homophobia is the central element of the entire events with which Panti, John Waters, and Breda O'Brien are concerned so it should be addressed as such! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbrambo ( talk • contribs) 13:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

RTE appears to have made a decision based on legal counsel that they would lose a court action over the slur. It is not the role of Wikipedia to perpetuate the slur about living persons, and repeated insertion of the slur mentioning the living persons is clearly a violation of WP:BLP. I suggest you read the talk pages relevant to the policy to see why the policy protects living persons from slurs. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes we come up against the limits of mindless whimpering of"BLP". As any reasonable reading of the material in question shows, this is one of those times. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 14:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WP:BLP is not mindless whimpering, it is a Wikipedia policy. And if you wish to propose it for deletion, do so. Until then, we damn well follow what it says. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh dearie -- no, you have misunderstood. BLP is not mindless whimpering. The source of the mindless whimpering is to be found elsewhere, not in the BLP policy itself. I suspect other editors will understand more readily. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 15:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Wowee -- when in doubt, just resort to ad hom attacks I see ... any article mentioning a living person is subject to WP:BLP whether you think it should or not. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Nomoskedasticity. There is no BLP issue and here's why: This is an article about a controversy discussed on a national (Irish Parliament) even continental (European Parliament) level. The controversy is NOT that individuals were called homophobic and then paid damages, as Collect keeps changing it to read. The controversy, which is the entire purpose of the article, is that individuals who promote discrimination against homosexuals in Ireland were able to exploit Irelands anti-defamation laws in order to censor Rory O'Neill and get a cash settlement from RTÉ. THAT is the controversy!!! So please DO NOT change the article to read otherwise!!!!!!!. Whenever this issue has been documented in the press or discussed at a governmental level it has always been about the controversial decision of RTÉ to censor O'Neill and give money to the claimants. So we should all be able to see why it is that that is the controversy worth documenting here on wikipedia. If Collect is determined from keeping the article from reading as such, then Collect must have a personal agenda to keep the controversy away from John Waters. But unfortunately it is not up to Collect to decide something like that. Tbrambo ( talk) 17:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, the purpose of the article is to cover the subject of the article. And the content in the article must be shaped to represent the overall mainstream coverage of the subject and not be slanted towards coverage that may happen to be in the news right now. For Panti and Waters coverage certainly seems appropriate - it has given Panti international coverage and Waters quit/left/was quietly forced out of a powerful government position. For the other individuals, there is not yet in my opinion anything lastingly significant to include their names. The incident is probably enough for the Iona Institute article. But the coverage should absolutely NOT be cookie cutter copied into multiple articles, the relevance of the various aspects are of appropriate weight to merit mention in one article but completely irrel to others. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Breda O'Brien was mention by name in the European Parliament. I'm sorry... but that fact alone, certainly warrants a mention on her page. You say "...the content in the article must be shaped to represent the overall mainstream coverage of the subject". Ok that's fine... and the overall mainstream coverage of the subject has been as I describe it above. So I don't understand why it keeps getting watered down so as to read like something else entirely has happened. The mainstream narrative of these events has been that RTÉ made a controversial decision for censoring O'Neill and paying those mentioned. Why is this being changed??? Tbrambo ( talk) 17:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Lots of people are mentioned by name or more than name in various parliamentary processes. that in itself does not indicate significance of the mention for any particular article. Wikipedia is about covering the subject of the article, NOT covering "controversies". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The controversy, which is the entire purpose of the article, is that individuals who promote discrimination against homosexuals in Ireland were able to exploit Irelands anti-defamation laws in order to censor Rory O'Neill and get a cash settlement from RTÉ. THAT is the controversy!!! So please DO NOT change the article to read otherwise!!!!!!!. shows precisely why WP:BLP does apply and must apply. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs, or to show how evil a person is. This is an encyclopedia with specific policies to prevent that sort of view from being used in articles. BTW, the Iona Institute article mentions specific living persons and thus is subject to the policy in any event. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 17:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

For some reason Collect just doesn't want the word homophobia attached to John Waters. This seems very suspicious to me. He was accused of homophobia, so the wikipedia article should be accurately written as such. You're reference to what I wrote: The controversy, which is the entire purpose of the article, is that individuals who promote discrimination against homosexuals in Ireland were able to exploit Irelands anti-defamation laws in order to censor Rory O'Neill and get a cash settlement from RTÉ. THAT is the controversy!!! on this page might apply under "BLP" but what I wrote on the actual article page certainly does not. Please stop this crusade. Your agenda is clear. Tbrambo ( talk) 18:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea who Waters is. I do have a sense of BLP policy, however, and this effort to insert what is clearly a contentious claim into a BLP article is not helpful to the project. Moreover, the ongoing questioning of the hidden motives of other editors is not allowed and must be immediately stopped. Collect's well known long term agenda has always been to abide by BLP policy. Apparently others here dislike that policy, they may attempt to change the policy. Good luck. In the meantime the policy must be adhered to. Capitalismojo ( talk) 21:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

That's enough nonsense about agendas. Dawkins knows Collect and I do not always see eye to eye but this needs a cool discussion, not accusations. It is right that we maintain a conservative line on BLP matters. If a properly constituted RfC decides this material is merited then it could be. If there is a valid dispute then pending its resolution it should not be. We are not a tabloid newspaper. -- John ( talk) 21:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Per the WP:AN/EW complaint against me - Wikipedia is now two full steps below the Daily Mail -- the worst imaginable claims no longer need strong sourcing from reliable sources but a single person calling anyone a "homophobe" and getting it into print is now a valid source for making claims in any biography one wishes. Note: RTE retracted the material. Retracted. But is still good enough to label groups and individuals as "homophobes" or to say the person has been called a "homophobe." If such becomes the "new norm" then it is clear that this board is Wertlos and Kaput. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 23:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

George Foulkes, Baron Foulkes of Cumnock (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm no fan of George Foulkes but someone keeps adding in unsourced, unverified and potentially defamatory paragraphs to his page. The editor in question obviously does not want the UK to be in the EU and is taking out his frustration by adding his biased opinions to this article. The edits in question can be seen below, they are the last sentences in the Controversies and introduction sections respectively.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=George_Foulkes,_Baron_Foulkes_of_Cumnock&oldid=594050511

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=George_Foulkes,_Baron_Foulkes_of_Cumnock&oldid=594050434 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohehken ( talk • contribs) 18:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Emanuele Michetti (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Emanuele Michetti's wikipedia page was written by himself. His editing name is "userdobby." He is not a notable figure in film and as I understand it, a biography must be neutral. It is an unreliable and prohibited page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.225.146 ( talk) 19:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hebah Alhazza a passionit and creative inventor Kuwaiti woman born in Kuwait in 1982, the eldest daughter of Abdullah Alhazza has three sisters Haya, Hessa, Rawwa and one Brother. currently Hebah Works in the Kuwait Investment Authority while creating exiting card games that would be published soon in 2014.

This is not the place for suggesting an article. Please go to WP:RA.-- ukexpat ( talk) 15:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Author of this article "Shiv Nadar"

Kindly note that the below last 3 paragraphs are repeated twice.

• Career
• Focus on education and healthcare
• Awards and accolades

Please remove them.

Thanks & Regards, Logesh E — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.65.195 ( talk) 18:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Fixed; next time you can do it yourself! Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 18:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I just pared down the section "controversy," at Carla Howe (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but the cites still seem a little weak compared to the claims being made about third party living people. Additional eyes would be welcomed. VQuakr ( talk) 23:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please review this AfD.  This is a BLP issue because of the context.  The profanity and f-bombs are particularly inappropriate and I request that they be reviewed for revision deletion.  Thank you, Unscintillating ( talk) 03:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Please review Prince Charles Alexander (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and remove the maintenance tags if warranted. The gentleman in question is puzzled. Thanks. Guy ( Help!) 00:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Please review JaLynn Prince (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and remove maintenance tags if you believe they are no longer warranted. Thanks. Guy ( Help!) 00:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber who has had a large share of tabloid articles, now has the full tabloid treatment in his BLP, with every minor article from the past year now SYNTHed into a "Legal troubles" section making up 2/3 pf his entire "personal life" and including his mug shot, even where the incident did not directly involve anything on his part. Eyes and keyboards please examine that BLP - I durst not get too involved there as some appear to regard de-Bieberisation as their one true calling. Collect ( talk) 13:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the monkey bit should go. It's puzzling that the lead makes no mention of this aspect of his life (the general issue, not the monkey bit). Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 13:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Only the monkey bit is all you see as being tabloid fodder? Um -- look closer at the "stuff" and the SYNTH in it. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The "toxicology report" from his DUI arrest has now been repeatedly added to the BLP. Are such reports of encyclopedic value in a BLP? Collect ( talk) 13:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I would consider this a primary source. We could not use this unless a reputable secondary source has published it. -- John ( talk) 14:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Does CNN count as a primary source? [6]. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Collect from your WP:POV they are minor things. But when these "minor things" are reported in detail in reliable and secondary sources then they become inclusion worthy. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 18:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Now an editor seems to think the "petition to deport" is worth 1600 characters in the BLP ... AFAICT, the White House has not the authority to deport, making the "petition" a bit of a sideshow. Collect ( talk) 14:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, full disclosure; I signed it too. :) But it has no place in a WIkipedia article, online petitions are fluff. Tarc ( talk) 14:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't be bustin on da beeb. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 14:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It is ridiculous that this is even up for discussion. Any idiot can can start a frivolous petition, and a handful of other idiots can register a mass of e-mail accounts to "vote" in no time. This thing has been abused to ask for things from the deportation of Piers Morgan to demanding the government build a real Death Star. It is beyond the realm of credibility that this bears mentioning in a BLP. Tarc ( talk) 17:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Any idiot can. And handfuls might follow. 200k is not a handful. Not every petition is the one that gains the most sigs. "THIS" one is. It's not generic. This petition is notable. I think it is stupid. I think there's no chance that the white house will do more than hand wave about what they can do. That doesn't mean it isn't worth mentioning. -- Onorem ( talk) 17:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does. It will have no effect on the life of the BLP, and is nothing more than tabloid fodder. Maybe if Justin Timberlake started the petition, and Obama responded personally, it could be mentioned on JT's article. But not in Bieber's or Obama's. Dave Dial ( talk) 21:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• The petition actually took up slightly over 1800 characters... over 1350 were references to five sources: TIME, Reuters, CNN, The Indepedent and MarketWatch. Straw man again, Collect? starship.paint ( talk | contribs) 00:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
  
• I'm just getting a vibe of sheer arrogance here from several editors. Right on this page the petition is described as a bit of a sideshow, online petitions are fluff and nothing more than tabloid fodder. This is apparently in contradiction to the many reliable sources which have chosen to report this incident. I have already posted on the article's talk page on sources which have reported this in serious detail: Forbes, TIME, ABC News, CNN News, Toronto Sun. There's more when I search now: Agence France Presse, BBC, Associated Press. The four news agencies mentioned in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources have been covered. What more do you need to convince you? Is there even a need to convince you? Do you have the authority to dismiss all these reliable sources? starship.paint ( talk | contribs) 00:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Any idiot can can start a frivolous petition, and a handful of other idiots can register a mass of e-mail accounts to "vote" in no time. - I have mentioned reliable sources to back me up, can you do the same for this statement? Can you prove this is the case? The multiple reliable sources apparently don't support your view. This thing has been abused to ask for things from the deportation of Piers Morgan to demanding the government build a real Death Star. - and so what? Each "petition" should be analysed by itself. Other petitions should not affect it. Read below on how this petition is relevant to Bieber's article - it's to his image. Similarly, Morgan's petition would reflect his image. starship.paint ( talk | contribs) 00:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• beyond the realm of credibility that this bears mentioning in a BLP / no effect on the life of the BLP - it's comments like this that make me feel this discussion should not be here. It should be on Bieber's talk page. I don't know if you guys are getting the full picture here. I have posted my rationale for adding the content on the talk page. Please go and read it in full. Essentially, the content was posted in the "style, image and news" section of Bieber's article. The petition reflects Bieber's image in the eyes of the American public. 200,000 people have endorsed Bieber as "dangerous, reckless, destructive, and drug abusing" and "a terrible influence on our nations youth". This is relevant to Bieber's image. Petitions that cross the 100,000 signature mark require an official White House response. Bieber's petition has doubled that and become the most popular open petition on the website. This makes it noteworthy. Whether the White House has the legal authority to deport Bieber has nothing to do with Bieber's image and thus should not even be discussed, whereas the mere existence of the petition with its signatures reflects Bieber's image. The multiple sources I provided above prove that this incident is well documented. Since nobody has cited policy yet, I will: the content fits WP:WELLKNOWN: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article. starship.paint ( talk | contribs) 00:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• As mentioned, please take further discussion to the talk page, you will be able to read more responses there as well. I have included this discussion there in a collapsed section. starship.paint ( talk | contribs) 00:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope -- BLP discussions are properly placed on this noticeboard, and I deleted your copying of this page to the article talk page -- such "moves" are improper and can be misleading as the timestamps do not correspond to timestamps on the article talk page. Please simply use the concept that BLP discussions are properly held here. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 00:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm simply trying to merge the discussions in good faith, so that everyone there and everyone here can come together to discuss, instead of some here (or some there) not reading what's on the other side. There seemed to be more discussion on the talk page, so I moved it there. starship.paint ( talk | contribs) 00:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

By number of lines by one editor - close to a tie <g>. The principle is that people watchlist pages they have posted on ... if a post is copied to another page, they will not see the replies at all on the other page. Which is why copying discussions if "not done." Collect ( talk) 01:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ah. But anyone who actually watchlisted this page would actually see my notice from 00:15-00:36 that I have tried to move the discussion to the article's talk page. I didn't do this behind anyone's backs. starship.paint ( talk | contribs) 03:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• and <g>? Let me tell you what I grin about. You clearly had the ability to reply to this discussion, because you did so on 00:41 and 01:14. But you somehow neglected to reply to my rationale on including the content to the article, when I explained in detail how it is related to WP:WELLKNOWN as it is relevant to Bieber's image, noteworthy and well documented. A gentleman would dare to publicly admit defeat. Right now you don't even bother (or don't have the decency?) to reply. You have previously dismissed my arguments with sweeping statements and broadly hid behind WP:BLP, a rather disturbing trend. Also, please don't pull the "I have a life" card again. starship.paint ( talk | contribs) 03:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The petition is a joke, and deserves zero mention in the article at this time. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 03:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

What a weak reply. Nothing to back your statement up, no reference to policy, no reliable source cited. starship.paint ( talk | contribs) 04:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I've been away since yesterday, but see nothing that has transpired here in the last 24h to change the situation. That these faux petitions are covered by the media doesn't make them relevant to the subject's biography. Piers Morgan's article doesn't mention the signatures in support of his deportation either. I'd be supportive of a brief entry at We the People (petitioning system), as it is the petition itself that received the coverage. It has nothing to do with the subject's legitimate legal woes. Tarc ( talk) 15:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Tarc, Collect and Dave Dial. The petition is not a central part of the story of Bieber's biography. It is interesting, to a point, and that is why newspapers cover it. But we are not a newspaper. If it is still attracting serious comment in a year we could cover it. -- John ( talk) 19:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the petition should not be included, these kind of things as Tarc pointed out got the same coverage by the people who wanted to build a real Death Star. As for Justin Bieber's legal troubles if WP:RS are reporting them then we should include them per WP:NPOV. Wikipedia's Neutral point of view being a fundamental principle ( WP:PILLAR). So while the article has a section devoted to his philanthropic work which is also documented in WP:RS so should his legal troubles. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

For clarity purposes, here is the updated content in question: In late January 2014, Bieber's negative image in the eyes of the American public was exemplified by a petition created on the White House's website which described Bieber as "dangerous, reckless, destructive and drug-abusing" and a "terrible influence to our nations (sic) youth" thus calling for Bieber to be deported. ^{[2] [3] [4]} The petition attracted over 200,000 signatures, becoming the most popular of all open White House petitions within days. ^{[5] [6]}

For the three users who have posted above me, I can't help but feel that you haven't grasped my point of view yet, specifically, regarding the content's relevancy to the article (Bieber). I acknowledge that it is possible to view the petition, by itself, as nothing to be included in Bieber's biography, because it wasn't actually something Bieber did? Simply put, you view the petition as being separate from Bieber. But I disagree, because I take one extra step to see a "bigger picture". The petition clearly states what it thinks of Bieber, chief claim that Bieber is a negative influence to American youth. Is this not reflective of Bieber's image? There is a section on Bieber's image in his article. If there were no section on Bieber's image, the petition would not be relevant unless Bieber is actually deported, as there would be nowhere for the petition to fit in. But by endorsing the petition, the signatories have endorsed this view of Bieber's image. starship.paint ( talk | contribs) 01:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Additional replies to Tarc, just because Piers Morgan's article does not cover it, doesn't mean Bieber's article should not. It could be that both articles should have the content. From what I see, Morgan's article has no "image" section, so there is no good place to insert that content. To Knowledgekid87, just because the White House has received a petition for a Death Star, to me it doesn't affect the relevancy or the noteworthiness of the content in relation to Bieber. Noteworthiness is determined by the White House's rules that it has to respond, as well as Bieber's petition being the largest open petition, a days-old petition overtaking months-old ones. starship.paint ( talk | contribs) 01:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Clue: Reposting walls of text generally does not actually convince others that you are somehow the only person to really understand Wikipedia polices. Collect ( talk) 01:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You've done nothing to rebut my arguments except implying that I still do not understand policy, while posting too much. Your post is quite irrelevant to the argument at hand. starship.paint ( talk | contribs) 03:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

If I am making an argument, I try to back it up with elaboration and substantiation, so that it all links together (in this case, to Wikipedia policy). It's not fluff trying to out-type anyone else. I don't just state my point and leave expecting others to understand (see Two kinds of pork's post for example, and even yours, Collect, because you were the first one to revert my edit, I expect the most substantial arguments to come from you, but what have you produced? Simple arguments I have shot down and side-steps) Quite frankly, I am insulted that nobody is really bothering to argue on my rationale. I have done my part to argue my point-of-view, but honestly, nobody is offering a direct and detailed response, how will consensus be derived then? By ignoring me? starship.paint ( talk | contribs) 03:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

File a RfC. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 04:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion, however at this point I think there's no need to. I hope all other parties will give more detailed replies... you too, Two kinds of pork, are free to elaborate on your own stance and also argue why my own rationale is not "valid". starship.paint ( talk | contribs) 07:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The point is, when we do include criticisms of the subject in a biography we tend to look for critics who are actually credentialed or in some way recognized as a reliable/recognizable voice. That's why we go with rock critics to include in music articles, a Roger Ebert for film, and so on; not randomguywithblog.com, not a person-on-the-street interview. That's where these petitions lie, in the realm of the anonymous and the ill-informed. A mass collection of stupid people doing stupid things can itself be notable, sure, that's why we can mention it in the petition article. But the opinion of thousands of anonymous individuals on a matter of celebrity and immigration issues is 100% worthless. Tarc ( talk) 15:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, it is definitely among the better ones. I get that a critic is more reliable or preferred. But this is the public commenting on Bieber's public image, it's not just hundreds or thousands of people endorsing their opinion, it is hundreds of thousands of anonymous members of the public endorse a certain opinion regarding their image of Justin Bieber, then I think it's noteworthy. The White House itself sets their threshold for an official response as 100,000. That's what they consider noteworthy. The newspapers of the world have reported the petition once it crossed the White House's threshold, so they consider it noteworthy too. That's why I too, follow suit and consider it noteworthy. Bonus points for being the largest open petition and surpassing month-old petitions within days. It's not that the image section is called "image in the eyes of critics only". starship.paint ( talk | contribs) 06:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

We as editors have the luxury of being able to use discretion about content to include, even if it is reliably sourced. This petition is obviously a joke and any coverage it has received has not discussed the matter with any seriousness. Should the petition reach a groundswell, and obtain coverage of more than a light hearted note, I'd imagine our shared discretion will certainly change to include. But I doubt that's gonna happen. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 06:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

If there's a lack of seriousness, it's probably because experts say Bieber won't be deported, which I acknowledge. I will still maintain that the petition's relevance to the article is not on immigration, but on its signatories opinion on Bieber's image of a negative influence. starship.paint ( talk | contribs) 12:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

100,000 clicks on an ePetition doesn't mean that 100,000 individuals expressed their opinion, though. Online petitions are rife with [ manipulation] and lulz, because we cannot verify the identity of the voters. Tarc ( talk) 13:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

What you said is true, and will apply for any online petition. It doesn't mean this petition was manipulated though, unless you have a reliable source suggesting that. I believe that the news agencies have taken this into account when reporting it. starship.paint ( talk | contribs) 12:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

My 2 cents regarding the petitions topic, but as starship.paint stated, isn't the fact that this petition has been covered by a lot of major media a sufficient reason for mentioning it? See Time, Forbes, others... It might be indeed just a tabloïd-friendly topic, but even here in France it did make it to major TV news programs. Whatever your views are on the relevance of this petition, the media consider it a significant event - maybe just funny or plain stupid, but significant. OTOH I agree that it doesn't deserve more than a few sentences, at least until TWH responds. -- JimeoWan ( talk) 12:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that US Lawmakers are getting involved in the petition: [7] [8] So it's notability might not be as questionable now. The petition now has just under 250,000 signatures. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 06:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

As there are almost 320 million citizens of the United States, it seems that well under one in a thousand Americans has signed this petition. That's not a landslide. The place to report on this petition is the article about the petition website, not in a biography of a living person. If the U.S. government actually initiates deportation action, perhaps then. But all kinds of BLP crud can accumulate around the most famous celebrities, and we have to show some editorial judgment. This is chaff, not wheat. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

And how many of those petitions get a response from congress? This is not mere tabloid crud. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 12:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

And the Congressional Resolution is where? That a single member of Congress says something is not the same as Congress doing something. Collect ( talk) 13:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

It's almost like some here have the mistaken notion that this petition process is an actual cog in the machinery of the federal government, i.e. a means of private citizens initiating actual legislation. All this website has been since Day 1 is a public relations novelty, not a direct channel between President Obama and his voters. When petitions reach the threshold for response, said response is delegated to some obscure policy wonk. The Death Star response was penned by a Paul Shawcross, the chief of the Science and Space Branch in the White House Office of Management and Budget. Tarc ( talk) 15:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Like I stated in the talk page; this argument is getting really ridiculous. As far as I can see the only reason people have to not include this event in his article is because WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Correct me if I am wrong. This petition has significant coverage (including just about every new company such as CNN, USA Today, NY Daily, Forbes, Bloomberg, Fox, Time, ABC, and countless more you can easily verify yourself). In fact the petition has gained support from Sen. Mark Warner (sarcastic or not is simply speculation).

The petition has been the subject of debate on the legality of deporting him based on his past criminal record (refs [9] [10] [11]) or whether his O-1 visa could be revoked (refs [12]). His petition has also taken a spin into the immigration debate with various news outlets suggesting bieber is a new face of immigration ( [13]). I fail to see why is there an argument in the first place. -- CyberXRef ^☎ 02:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's have https://canada.wikipedia.org already, and deport the info to there. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 04:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Lol, there is no legitimacy at all in an actual deportation taking place here, and this has nothing to do with immigration in general. If this is the TMZ-esque spin that some are giving this, then that is all the more reason to keep it out of the article. Tarc ( talk) 04:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again, more WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. You've yet to make any real argument against it, other than throwing your standard "it has no value" argument. It's not about whether he can be deported or not, the whole petition speaks volumes to his public image. It's not a pass-by mention, it's something that has received world-wide attention. although since we are on that topic, if his 'Egg-Gate Case' matures into a felony charge as being reported, he CAN be deported ( [14], [15], [16], [17]). It should be noted that all of that is conveniently omitted from the article, again...

Frankly I am not happy with many of the other edits to that article. People are not maintaining a WP:NPOV. His legal issues are mounting up and certain individuals continuously remove every mention of it from the article. Many of these incidents are very notable and should be reflected in the article appropriately (read: appropriately; not in a way that glorifies it and certainly NOT by omitting it). Most recently, by Flyer22 in this edit and this one on Tofutwitch11's edit. It's clearly not a "another poor attempt to highlight legal aspects". It's a notable event that's easily verifiable and deserve mentioning. Regarding his marijuana smoking in his private jet on his way to the super bowl, putting all their lives at risk even after the crew demanded that they stop smoking. Where the smoking got so bad the pilots were actually forced to wear oxygen masks! ( Huff Post, NBC, The Guardian, time). You continuously throw WP:BLP but you forget that BLP means natural point of view, it doesn't mean purposely remove/omitting any negative acts done by the subject. It's not our job to defend Mr Bieber, it's our job to present things in a neutral and encyclopedic way. Now, I am not saying each of these events should take up a whole paragraph, however they should not be omitted either. -- CyberXRef ^☎ 14:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't link to my name/ping me in an attempt to justify overly detailed material added to highlight Bieber's legal troubles. Bieber's legal troubles was/still is already summarized in the Justin Bieber article. And then Tofutwitch11 devotes a paragraph to one incident that is not even the most notable or is barely notable? That is most certainly a WP:Undue weight violation, like I stated in this follow-up edit summary. Wikipedia summarizes; see WP:Summary style, for example. It is not supposed to document every single thing and in as much detail as possible. And having a Legal issues section, whether with a subheading as part of the Personal life section or separate from it, is criticized for valid reasons on the Justin Bieber talk page.

Leave me out of your ridiculous drama, because I could not care less about protecting Bieber. I do, however, care about text that violates MOS:PARAGRAPHS (as the edit history of the Justin Bieber article shows, for instance, here and here) and other Wikipedia guidelines and policies, especially when those violations are taking place all just to emphasize what a "bad boy" or "bad girl" someone is. The attempt by some of you here to make Bieber out to be the worst person since, for example, Charles Manson could not be more obvious than it already is. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Flyer there appears to be a WP:PRECEDENT when it comes to Legal issue subheaders in articles, some examples:

Tank Johnson

Brandon Marshall

Ol' Dirty Bastard

Snoop Dogg

Pete Townshend

I can go on as there are more examples but will stop there. Now I understand there is a converse to the essay I provided but if you strongly oppose the addition here to Bieber's article then I feel some kind of consensus should be put into place when it comes to adding a "Legal troubles" section to an article. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 23:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, frankly, Bieber's legal troubles were adequately summarised... but they only documented incidents until the day of 29 January 2014. Which means that Bieber's legal troubles on 30 January and later, were not taken into account during the summarization. As I see it, Tofutwitch11 was simply trying to add content which has been never brought up before. Also, might I say, since the toxicology report from his arrest found THC (component of marijuana) in Bieber's system, additional incidents involving marijuana become more notable. starship.paint ( talk | ctrb) 05:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• We need more adults over at this article. As in the past we have a tabloid section starting again with daily news. really need to watch over this stuff. -- Moxy ( talk) 06:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber RfC

If people here have time and the desire to re-engage in the debate over legal issues and polls at the Justin Bieber article ....pls comment at Talk:Justin Bieber#RfC: Behaviour and legal issues Thank you for your time. -- Moxy ( talk) 04:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

In my aimless and time-wasting wanderings through Wikipedia, I sometimes come across articles about professional wrestlers, and never know quite what to make of them. For example, today I arrived at the article about Dean Malenko in which the voice of Wikipedia pronounces him as "lecherous". But are we supposed to treat these professional wrestlers as characters in a drama (in which case "lecherous" might be fine), or instead as real people (in which case "lecherous" might not be so fine)? In other words, are we really supposed to care about professional wrestlers? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, it is describing a character he was playing and his "lecherous ways". Yes, we care about professional wrestlers. BLP applies to them too. But in this case, it's describing the role he played. Niteshift36 ( talk) 03:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I am a member of WP:PW and frequently edit wrestlers' articles. Since professional wrestling is scripted, the wrestlers are all acting in kayfabe / storylines. Anything in the "professional wrestling career" section usually refers to the character the wrestler is playing. Wrestling has many distasteful storylines but we still have to report them. We've had necrophilia, slamming a 78 year old woman through a table, a "live sex celebration", wrestlers attacking another wrestler in their own homes, a commentator (really) set on fire, miscarriages, all in storyline. We also have storyline injuries, characters ( Santino Marella, a Canadian, has played and is playing an Italian for the entirely of his career in WWE) If something is legitimate, which is usually the exception, some kind of note is supposed to be included that the incident is legitimate. starship.paint ( talk | contribs) 04:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. I'm just wondering if there ought to be some statement in the BLP for dopes like me, saying that the stuff is not serious. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 05:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

There is, it just hasn't made its way around to the bios just yet.-- Will C 12:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Good to know it's in the works, thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Despite single Malenko only pursuing a romantic evening with a woman, he's "lecherous". But when that woman gets knocked up by the pyromaniac necrophiliac mentioned above to "protect" her boyfriend, then ditches both guys (in story and reality) for the aforementioned "live sex celebration", leading fans, wrestlers and commentators alike to chant "Slut!" for the rest of her career, there's none of it. I'm only fake outraged at the hypocrisy, but damn fake outraged. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Such hypocrisy. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 13:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Good show, everyone. Drmies ( talk) 19:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I want to report some incorrect and defamatory information posted about me on my page:

Colin Griffin

Would appreciate if I could have this deleted and that correct information could be posted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin Griffin ( talk • contribs) 11:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it was defamatory, but it appeared to be invented. It certainly wasn't in the "source" that was given for it. Anyway, I deleted it.

I advise you not to edit the article about you. This may appear bizarre -- Who knows you better than you do yourself? -- but if you read more about the matter I think you'll come to understand. Meanwhile, if people add their fantasies, don't hesitate to suggest changes on the talk page; and, if these don't get a prompt response, don't hesitate to post a message here. -- Hoary ( talk) 11:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

If blatantly false or unreferenced defamatory information is added to the article, it's perfectly fine for the editor to remove it himself. Joefromrandb ( talk) 11:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Blatantly false and unreferenced. Verifiability, not truth. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

"Presently he is the vice president and minister of education; his goals have been to bring El Salvador closer to the Chavez Social left as seen by his ties to FARC, ALBA, and Chavezism" is not cited. Because these alleged ties, factual or not, are to controversial organizations, it seems biased to see these on his page without sources ahead of a presidential election in which he will take part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.54.61 ( talk) 03:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. I have trimmed that section some. It's tricky, since there was some non-neutral language and, no doubt, some language that his campaign staff might not approve of even if it gets at the truth. The solution is to find the right references and rewrite the whole thing. Drmies ( talk) 22:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yevhen Konoplyanka (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Boguslavmandzyuk ( talk · contribs)

Can somebody please help explain WP:BLP to this editor? He feels that, because the uncited information is not libellous, it is fine to keep on re-adding it. He has already been warned about edit warring by another admin, but he won't listen to me seeing as I keep removing the material. Giant Snowman 09:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Matter solved, I suppose, without any interference. GiantSnowman, don't you all have some guidelines in your FOOTY program that you can point to? Drmies ( talk) 22:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, we do, and I did - but he ignored it. Anyway, like you said, another editor has found a reliable source to verify the information sp it's all good. Giant Snowman 10:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Blacklight Power is a pseudoscience, free-energy provider with many claims that are far outside of the mainstream. These claims are rightly treated with great skepticism. However, that doesn't exclude it's founder - Randell Mills, from the protection of WP:BLP. In particular, the article uses the term "fraud" in the lede with very thin support. The citation traces back to a 15-year-old article that appeared in the Village Voice, and is sourced to an expert physicist, but not someone in a position to accurately judge the motivations of Mr. Mills nor to interpret the field of securities fraud. The use of the term has been actively defended at the page, in my view in violation of WP:BLP. If there were more recent evidence of fraud, or if the those leveling the charge were able to show a cause of action, such as an investor, then the use of would be appropriate. However, I'd appreciate it if someone not involved in this page could take a look. Thanks. Ronnotel ( talk) 15:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The article doesn't specifically mention "securities fraud", and I'm not sure where Ronnotel is getting that reading, nor why he keeps repeating it. I would think that the implication (given the commenter and context) is one of scientific fraud. 'Fraud' doesn't always mean 'money'. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That's precisely why "fraud" is dangerous term to use and should be avoided. It has many meanings, and it's impossible to separate the connotations of financial impropriety in this situation. Ronnotel ( talk) 15:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

In full context, the sentence in our article reads

"The proposed theory is inconsistent with quantum mechanics and critics have ruled it out on those grounds, with some labelling it "fraud", "extremely unlikely", lacking corroborating scientific evidence, and a relic of cold fusion."

There's no possible way to misread that as referring to financial impropriety. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand this statement. BLP has raised $80M on the basis of this scientific claims. If his claims are fraudulent, then how could that not be interpreted as financial impropriety? As it happens, I do know something about securities fraud and Mills could be exposed if he can be shown to have intentionally misled his investors with fraudulent scientific results. Ronnotel ( talk) 16:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Assuming the assertion in the source is that it's the scientific claims that are fraudulent, then that's a distinct issue -- on its own it doesn't amount to an accusation of financial fraud. The sentence in question does not imply financial fraud (I agree with ToaT that one can't read it that way), and as long as there's no (unsupported) assertion regarding financial fraud I don't think there's a problem. One can after all engage in scientific fraud, and it seems that's what some observers make of the scientific claims. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 16:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the scientist who is quoted is very likely competent to judge whether an experiment and its results is flawed. However, what's at issue is whether that scientist is competent to determine whether the scientific flaws are the result of unethical behavior, which is what the term "fraud" invariably implies. Other scientist with qualifications that are as strong or stronger have been more closely involved with the company in the intervening years and we haven't seen any repetition of the fraud charges. That should give us pause - isn't this giving undue weight? What's more, with a fair reading of the article in question, it's difficult to see how the term "fraud" was the only part that seems to have made it into the lede. The article is actually quite supportive of Mills. Ronnotel ( talk) 18:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

"Fraud" is one of those words we have to read objectively. It's really neither a good nor bad thing till we start inferring. But all those quotes should be cited, and "some" replaced by a name(s). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Isaias Afewerki (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article needs a look. Recently Erescholar ( talk · contribs) made a large edit to the page, during which Afewerki's last name was changed to "Afwerki". I don't know enough about this person to know if this is the true spelling or not. -- Auric talk 17:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Judging from a quick Google search, looks like we have it wrong. Everyone else (except Britannica online) uses Afwerki. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 17:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wow. Auric, thanks for posting and, FreeRangeFrog, thanks for checking. Both of youse, for the hell of it, look at the very first posting of the talk page--from 2006. Can't believe no one ever picked up on that. Anyway, another editor has already gone through to make spelling consistent, and I simply moved the page. Thanks to you both. Drmies ( talk) 22:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Rita Grosse-Ruyken (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

what is the exact problem with this articel and how can we solve the problem? Please be so kind to help us. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rita Grosse-Ruyken ( talk • contribs) 11:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Please click on the bold links in the box at the top of the article for further explanation.-- ukexpat ( talk) 15:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Jasmine Campbell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are three birthdates and multiple Wiki entries for Jasmin Campbell of the Virgin Islands (March 26, August 11, November 8). Which one is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.2.173 ( talk) 20:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

November 8 appears to be the correct date.-- Auric talk 16:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

My name is Jeff Nelson. I have to open a BLP complaint regarding Chrome_OS#History and its accompanying talk page as it pertains to my previous work on the earliest revisions of Chrome OS and a patent filed by my former employer, Google, in 2009. I have to strenuously object to the tabloid tone of this section, the fact it quotes several unreliable sources, imports a dispute from outside wikipedia, and self-references the dispute as if it was a source for the article.

On Feb 13, 2013, an Internet user posted various allegations in a G+ comment regarding his doubts about my work, in which he clearly states "I truly don't know". But that did not stop this Internet user from making what appear to be extraordinary efforts to spread his uninformed opinion, proceeding to post on several blogs, lookup references to my name anywhere on the Internet, talked to a journalist, and finally imported the dispute to wikipedia.

This gentelman has a large social media following, many of whom added their own snarky comments, like "I don't know who this guy is." Some of those comments are also imported into the wikipedia article. I would suggest snarky statements also do not rise to the level of being considered reliable sources.

To their credit, Google immediately stepped in and told the employees involved to stop posting, less than 24 hours later.

I have asked Google to release a history of my work and the patent to clear up the matter.

Until that happens, I would suggest what is beyond dispute is this:

Google filed a patent titled "Network Based Operating System Across Devices" in March 2009, listing the inventor as Jeff Nelson.

A patent, written by Google's legal team in 2007, filed in 2009, at great expense, and now in the public record of the US Patent and Trademark Office is the most concrete and indisputable source, certainly far more reliable than a G+ post written in 5 minutes, at no cost, by a guy who stated he didn't know what he's talking about.

I would suggest one potential fix for the BLP is to replace the entire BLP paragraph with that one sentence and replace the unreliable sources and imported dispute with a reference to the patent, until Google releases a more complete and official history of my work and the patent. I don't have to tell you that it's entirely inappropriate any of the statements were written on various blogs or imported into wikipedia. My past career is not a subject for speculation or tabloid journalism, and the events of February 13, 2013 should not have happened. Wikipedia is acting as a repository for totally unfounded, potentially harmful statements about my career and past accomplishments.

So as to prevent further damage, I am going to temporarily apply the BLP fix I have outlined above and delete the Talk discussion as it pertains to my work, as well. Provided there is some other resolution, or more information emerges from Google, the fix can be amended at a later point. Chromemagnon07 ( talk) 01:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article shouldn't contain anything that doesn't come with good sources. But it's inappropriate to delete entire sections from the talk page, and I've restored these. The discussion there looked entirely normal to me. The key point will likely be whether this source is considered reliable. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 07:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Biography of Living Person policy states discussion of the subject should be removed from Talk page unless backed by reliable sources. I have restored the deletion and inserted the BLP template. All further discussion should occur here, not on the Talk page. Srcchecker ( talk) 21:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That section is *full* of sources. So I have restored it. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 22:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that Srcchecker ( talk · contribs) is a "brand new" account. Edits should be checked accordingly. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 22:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Links to the G+ comment which the subject is complaining or other blogs should not be considered *reliable* sources in my view. In this case the subject is self reporting what he described as "totally unfounded, potentially harmful statements" and refers to a dispute imported to wikipedia. Srcchecker ( talk) 23:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Mufaddal Saifuddin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article on Muffadal_Saifuddin is written by biased elements. There is a severe crisis in the dawoodi bohra community regarding succession issue of the Claimant of 53rd Da'i al-Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras . Muffadal is just one of the claimant to this title and there are various legal issues in court to decide the succession issue. The other claimant is Khuzaima_Qutbuddin who has furnished written proof of succession as the 53rd Da'i al-Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras. The only proof which Muffadal has is a video on the supposed succession where the 52th leader was in comatose state of stroke. He was just made to sit in front of Muffadal to show the succession.

Hence the article and its infobox should reflect Muffadal as a Claimant of 53rd Da'i al-Mutlaq and not appointed one as there are legal battles going for the succession. Khuzaima_Qutbuddin also is listed as the claimant in the infobox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.10.224.242 ( talk) 07:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Maicon Sisenado

1. wikipedia-en-revdel There is an error in the Maicon Sisenado's biography. He did not die on February, 8th. This data corresponds to another person named Maicon Pereira de Oliveira. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.45.246.93 ( talk) 11:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean Maicon Sisenando?-- Auric talk 16:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I call the attention of the Wikipedia community to the article on Alice Walker. An inordinate amount of the article is devoted to accusations of antisemitism and her support of David Icke, without noting that some readers see Icke's work as satire, and that Icke includes Christians and other religious denominations as part of his conspiracy theories as well.

While much attention has been devoted to Walker's activist efforts in support of Palestinians, no attention is paid to the controversies that erupted after the release of the film The Color Purple concerning Walker's depiction of Black men, nor after the release of Possessing the Secret of Joy concerning Walker's condemnation of genital mutilation. Both of these issues are explored in the film Alice Walker: Beauty in Truth, which aired on PBS American Masters on Friday, 7 February 2014.

Although certainly Walker is an activist, more attention is devoted to her political activity than to her writing or her personal history. It is her writing that is Walker's primary achievement. I am not experienced as a Wikipedia editor, therefore do not dare to edit the article. I hope someone does. As the article stands, it is hardly neutral and not representative. It appears to be accusatory. The article on Icke himself is much more nuanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightink ( talk • contribs) 18:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I firmly and thoroughly agree with your contentions. There was massive undue weight placed on that aspect of her life, along with incredibly-overlong recitations of criticism of her views that amounted to regurgitation rather than summarization. I have edited the article accordingly. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 22:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Kristi Lauren wikipedia page has biased and false information that must be removed immediately. Paragraph two, which begins with "Lauren began...", has bias information written in paretheses. Please remove. Paragraph three, which begins with "From 2011-12", has false information about negative reactions and vandalism. Please remove that as well. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garnetsun ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like petty vandalism. Thanks for letting us know. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 19:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Article is too short and not enough info is there. Only one link. No last name. Must be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okjaekim ( talk • contribs) 21:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• Well, none of those things are really relevant, yet I sent it to WP:AFD. Okjaekim, next time please use this noticeboard only to report and inquire about violations. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 02:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Keep an eye on this page. Questionable IP edits after an incident in a game last night. The Moose is loose! 17:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I have a problem with OTRS ticket:2014020610005258 which is going to need some sensitive handling due to the kinds of enemies the subject has made, the things for which the subject is known, and our systemic bias towards liberal values (don't ever change that). I am not looking for an off-wiki conspiracy but I need to discuss the background privately with a few people in order to be able to frame matters correctly here without violating confidentiality or attracting adverse publicity. The subject is a controversial figure but seems to me to have a genuine concern that we should address. Please email me if you are interested in helping me think this through. Guy ( Help!) 21:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Kermit Roosevelt III (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article appears to conflate Kermit Roosevelt III and Kermit Roosevelt IV. Teddy would not be pleased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tem42 ( talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Teddy would be delighted that his family is still causing trouble. Anyway, the talk page contains this message from the UPenn Professor named Kermit Roosevelt:

“	Hope this doesn't make things harder for you ... probably something I should have mentioned before. We've done a very bad job keeping the numerals straight. When my great-grandfather died, my grandfather, who'd been Kermit Roosevelt Jr. started calling himself Kermit Roosevelt Sr. That made sense, I suppose, on the theory that he was now the elder living Kermit. So my father was called Kermit Roosevelt Jr. for, I think, almost his whole life. I was born while my grandfather was still alive and was called Kermit Roosevelt III. When my grandfather died, my father told me that he was dropping the Jr. and suggested that I could take it up if I wanted. I said that was the craziest thing I'd ever heard of, because I had enough trouble being confused with him already and had used Kermit Roosevelt III in all of my legal documents (passport, driver's license, bar admission, etc.). I also publish my law review articles as III, but I thought it would look wildly pretentious on a book jacket, so I left it off.	”
— Kermit Roosevelt Assistant Professor University of Pennsylvania Law School 3400 Chestnut Street Philadelphia PA 19104

And from a later email:

“

No one but me has ever been called Kermit III, and I've never been called Kermit IV, although I am definitely the fourth Kermit. Both my father and my grandfather have been Kermit Jr., and if my father takes the Sr., then he and my grandfather (and I think my great-grandfather) will have shared that.

”

All completely unreliable, but still.... Anythingyouwant ( talk) 02:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

1. President Theodore Roosevelt openly outright DESPISED being called "Teddy"- referring to him as such is essentially dishonoring him.

2. Per WP:SUFFIX, "IV" is his true suffix. Calling him "III" would be a suffix misuse and would be basically like disregarding the existence if one of the previous Kermits. Discounting them would be a dishonor. 174.254.176.242 ( talk) 05:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

AFAICT, the suffix is honorific in nature and has no actual legal significance. If he uses "III" then "III" it is. I would also point out that if any middle names are involved for any of them, then all bets are off as to "numbering" people. Collect ( talk) 13:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME seems to be the applicable policy and the III is part of his common name and the name he uses. It is not really relevant that someone without an article (even if it was his father at some point in the past) shared that name. If that other person did have an article only then would we need to disambiguate the names, but that is not the case here. We shouldn't be in the business of "correcting" a person's name. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 14:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, with respect to the suffix, he did say the III is part of his legal name as he uses it on official legal documents so it is not a mere honorific. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 14:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, the "III" is not a "required part of a legal signature" thus that part is fairly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If he signs a document without the "III" it is still his legal signature. Collect ( talk) 14:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It is part of his name on his passport and other documents that require the full legal name as he said in his note. Passports usually match birth certificates. How you sign stuff seldom requires you to use your full legal name. It is relevant to the discussion as that is a part of his full legal name and that should be what is in the article as his name. This generational stuff is a distraction and that is what is irrelevant. General wiki policy on how we name articles and reliance on reliable sources is the only thing we should be concerned with. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 14:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

IOW you seem to think his birth certificate must have "III" on it? I doubt it. And try reading up on "legal signature" - nowhere is it required that some mystical "full legal name" is required, or even exists. For example, passports do not require "legal name change" forms where a person is married, nor do most married women have their full maiden name on passports, though they may. "Full legal name" is not even relevant to this discussion - his name is whatever he legally wishes to assert it is (basically, as long as no fraud is involved). Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

No need to misrepresent what I stated. I said "usually" not "must" as I haven't seen his birth certificate. I am well familiar with the passport application process - "Certified U.S. Birth Certificate" is one of the required documents for people born in the US. If that is the name on his passport it is likely that that is the name on his birth certificate. By common law your legal name is whatever you say it is as long as fraud is not involved but most American men stick with how they were named by their parents and he has asserted that "Kermit Roosevelt III" is his name backed up with usage where fraud would matter. The only relevance to wiki about his full name is that is the name first mentioned in the lede. Common name is normally how we name articles and the name used in the rest of the article. In this case we need a disambiguator so the III serves that purpose. We could have just as easily used something else, but the III is convenient and correct as that is part of his actual name. Saying the III is not part of his actual name is what is leading to this discussion in the first place with people thinking it would be OK to "correct" it to IV based on some sort of naming rules his parents and he neglected to follow. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 15:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

As I stated clearly above, he has the right to use whatever suffix he desires as long as it is not done for any illegal purpose. "Correcting" it to "IV" in a Wikipedia article is thus wrong per my arguments - and does not depend on any "birth certificate name" at all. [18] appears determinative here -- and specifically allows variance from "birth certificate name" and "passport name." BTW, I had an uncle whose "birth certificate name" was wrong - and was easily handled by the Passport office, and my wife's mother's birth certificate listed a "wrong place of birth" (um -- "South Carolina" instead of "Scotland" and the agent did not burp at all). Cheers. Collect ( talk) 16:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes we agree. The only reason I got into this is because I thought your original comment about the "suffix is honorific in nature and has no actual legal significance" weakened your basic point that you reiterated above and that I agree with. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 16:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Apologies to IP 174.254.176.242 for what TR called the "outrageous impertinence" of calling him "Teddy". At least I'm in very plentiful company.  :-) Anythingyouwant ( talk) 13:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be confusion between common name and actual name. While his common name might be III, his true name is undoubtedly IV. I know from personal experience that death has no impact whatsoever on suffix: My grandfather was a Jr. throughout his life, and the fact that his father (Sr.) died at 58 when my grandfather was 12 didn't change anything at all about his name. My eldest uncle is III and first cousin is IV, and they were respectively 35 and 12 when my grandfather passed away at 61. Calling this Kermit "III" would create a consistency error and make it harder to keep track of the Kermit's. If one of the previous Kermit's had a middle name that the others didn't (or had no middle name when the others all shared one), then he would be III. One cannot simply disregard the existence of the previous Kermit's. Calling him "III" would suggest there were only two Kermit's before him. Therefore, it is misleading to call him "III". The only way a suffix could possibly change after death is if one changes his first/middle/last name(s), like how President Bill Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe III after his father William Jefferson Blythe, Jr. (who died three months before Bill's birth) and changed his last name as a teenager to "Clinton" for his stepfather Roger Clinton. 174.236.3.127 ( talk) 03:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

There should be a section that covers a politicians voting record when they are in office or running for office atleast.

Also I don't see how it's defamatory to Jeff Gorell to say McGeorge is ranked #124 by U.S. News when Wikipedia has McGeorge Law School ranked #168th.

The truth and facts should matter to Wikipedia. I had the same problem when I changed Elton Gallegly's Wikipedia to the truth. Good Day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.149.172 ( talk) 06:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Do we regularly report one particular ranking of a politician's law school? Which ranking system should we use? NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 09:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

That's something that goes in the article about the school, not in the articles of alumni. -- CyberXRef ^☎ 18:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The article Oliver James (psychologist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a mess: it's peppered with primary source links to YouTube and lacks credible independent sources. It's also been a target for defamatory vandalism ( OTRS Ticket:2014021010007122. I guess the subject probably is notable, but the tone makes it look as if the opposite is true. Would someone please have a look at it for me? Thanks. Guy ( Help!) 21:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hard to know what to do without rewriting the whole thing. Did you have anything specific in mind? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Morgan Carpenter (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Concerns about article. relies heavily on subject's own writing, predominantly sources blog posts by subject posted on OII website he administers, edits and publishes. I have asked sole editor, Nsw2042, about possible WP:COI or WP:SELFPROMOTE by asking whether he is the subject of the BLP. Have received no reply. I would question subject's notability for a BLP as substantial as this. Note this editor has done extensive re-writes of a number of articles linked to this BLP's area of activism. My concern is that some templates placed (such as WP:OR & WP:SPS have been reverted without being addressed, and I am not interested in an edit war with sole-editor. Suggest this BLP needs eyes on it, as may do other articles connected with this editor in this area. - MishMich - Talk - 23:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

the editor name is Nsw2042. The OII Australia website (written, published and edited by the subject of the BLP) gives the official address as PO Box 46, Newtown, NSW 2042.- MishMich - Talk - 10:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Mark_Miller claims that it is prohibited to claim a Wikipedian lied and has removed [ [19]] such accusations, claiming [ [20]] that BLP demands such removal immediately and without discussion, even though I pointed out [ [21]] that BLP contains exceptions for "related to making content choices" and "to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community". Immediately and without discussion deleting any statement that someone has lied would make many discussions impossible, and would even prohibit arbcom decisions from being made public. Ken Arromdee ( talk) 09:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly. Claiming Jimbo lied is prohibited in this instance because it was as a public figure in an interview where someone came to his talk page and made a non neutral header making the claim and a comment in the text as well, that was an outright accusation to that figure on his talk page space.

any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. ^[7] This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. ^[8]

It violates a few different policies, but in this case I saw it exactly as saying X pop star lied about his age and I prove it.....and then not being able to prove it...but then it isn't our place to prove it. If a reliable source actually says that Jimbo Wales lied then go for it and put it in his article. But confronting a Wikipedian about off Wiki activity in a way as to create a humiliating atmosphere...that's bad enough.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 10:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• This is an important noticeboard where many serious violations should be addressed. It is not a place to discuss whether someone should have mentioned "BLP" while removing an obvious personal attack on a named person. Restoring such a personal attack (an attack with zero evidence by the way) was extremely misguided. Johnuniq ( talk) 10:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Does Ken Arromdee ( talk · contribs) do anything useful on Wikipedia? Or is it all about stirring the shit on Jimbo's page? Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 10:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This has to be the worst written article I have every come across, I wouldn't even know where to start editing it. It is rife with run-on, fragmented and nonsensical sentences. For example "Whereas her father, Thomas (born 1954),[51][52] is a Chicago-native[52][53] American with British-Irish origins,[2][17] the relatives of her mother Zarin (born 1961),[51][52] whose ancestry originates partly in Russia, are of Iranian[1][2][51][53] or else Persian[53] descent, for a change.[n. 1]" It's painful to read, please help. Thank you.

The Murder of Meredith Kercher article, which I have been editing, has a lede link to the article ' Amanda Knox'. The article ' Amanda Knox', which I have never edited, has as ref 13 (www.perugiamurderfile.org). It's an SPS, and a site that is dedicated to the idea that Knox is a murderer. The source is ref for text in the Amanda Knox article in Wikipedia's voice, which is insinuating that a living person has committed murder. My understanding is such material should be removed. I removed the link, which was put back in, and have made the point in talk that the Murder of Meredith Kercher article is a BLP in relation to Knox. I think the link should be removed, but I'm being told in the Murder of Meredith Kercher Talk by multiple editors (who are extremely familiar with the Amanda Knox article) that there is nothing wrong with the Amanda Knox article, and also even if there is, I have to fix the Amanda Knox article and must not alter the link to it. Is it true that I have to alter or even propose for deletion the article that is being linked to, rather than removing the link, if the link is to an article with BLP issues. See Talk here There is a lot of stuff in the Amanda Knox article which has BLP issues in my opinion, so it's not like one change would solve the problem posed by retaining a link to it. Overagainst ( talk) 19:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Why not fix the Knox article then? The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that, at the moment, Knox is convicted under Italian law for the murder. While the murder file site is a terrible reference to use, linking her to the murder is not inappropriate independent of any of our feelings on the case. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 20:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, Because multiple editors on the Amanda Knox article reacted as if it was an all or nothing issue, and challenged me to propose it for deletion when I raised the SPS and BLP. As most of them don't see anything wrong with anything in it, and only 1 editor tells me to fix it; I'm not going to get very far fixing the Amanda Knox article under those circumstances. Also I'm being told Knox has to be treated as a celebrity as her notability obviously transcends the subject of the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. I don't think she has any notability at all that does not derive from the MoMK, and think the onus is on those who think the Amanda Knox article should exist, to conform it to BLP and worthy of a link from the Murder of Meredith Kercher page. Until then the link should be removed . Overagainst ( talk) 21:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No that's incorrect I'm afraid. If you don't want to fix the Knox article, or can't find consensus to do so, then you shouldn't attempt to summarily to remove a link to it from a pertinent article. One presumes that if you declare it needs to be removed from the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, you wish the links to the Knox article to removed from all Wikipedia articles? If not, why not? If so, why focus your argument on this one article? The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando, it should be borne in mind that under Italian law scientists were convicted in 2012 of not predicting an earthquake and sentenced to 6 years in prison. Anyway, the AK article text source is THEIR (the SPS's) translation of a document in Italian, a Supreme Court report dating from September 2013 giving their rationale for ordering a retrial of Knox and RS. It was not a judgement of the facts in the case. The retrial that just finished will have a written judgement on the facts in the case, that has not been published yet. When it does if there is a good source translation having the article say an Italian court concluded certain things would be fine, that's not the problem. We know they were found guilty at the latest trial. My objection is the AK article text is reffed to the anti Knox site SPS when stating in Wikepedia's voice that more than one person carried out the murder. "The autopsy concluded that she had been attacked by more than one person.[13]". It is pathologists not autopsies that conclude things, and there were different conclusions by the pathologists as to what the autopsy indicated. The main point is that a translation by Knox guilters at www.perugiamurderfile.org is a a totally unreliable source, especially for having such a BLP innuendo IN WIKIPEDIA'S VOICE. Overagainst ( talk) 21:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

According to the findings of the Italian legal system, Knox, Sollecito, and Guede are guilty of murdering Meredith Kercher. This is a simple fact that can be presented in the Wikipedia Voice. Tarc ( talk) 21:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Guede has exhausted the appeals process. Knox and Sollecito have not. So their status is most certainly not the same. Knox and Sollecito current status is the same as that of Andreotti who was was also 'guilty of murder according to the findings of the Italian legal system, untill the supreme court threw out his conviction. This should be obvious as Sollecito is in Italy and walking around free not in prison, or on bail either. (there is no bail in Italy) while Guede is in an Italian prison. 'According to the findings of the ,Italian legal system', or 'found guilty in by Italian courts on charges of murdering MK is how it should be phrased. But saying that "The autopsy concluded that she had been attacked by more than one person.[13]" is saying something in Wikipedia's voice a lot stronger than that. Overagainst ( talk) 21:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• The scientists were not convicted for "not predicting an earthquake" but for their alleged(?) downplaying of the risks. So much for being honest.
  Besides that you were told to bring it up at the aprobiate article, Amanda Knox, by at least 2 editors. Funny that you let stand a perceived BLP violation there instead of working on it and another funny thing is, that you have a big problem with the source used which actually provides a copy of the original court document (BTW, I sure do think it should be replaced with a RS) but not with the non-reliable SPS source used for the same purpose at the article you're arguing about leaving a link to Knoxs' article out. maybe we should purge both articles? ... or what? And how many opinions contrary to yours do you need to be able to accept them? TMCk ( talk) 22:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The earthquake scientists got convicted of manslaughter, and were sentenced to prison. The Italian legal system is NOT equivalent to the American or British. The SPS document is a translation by unknown persons at that dedicated anti-Knox site of a Italian language written explanation by the Supreme court of them ordering the trial that just ended). The supreme court was criticising the weight given to evidence by the Hellmann court that acquitted AK and RS, but they were not deciding what the facts of the case were in regard to it being being established that the 55 kg Kercher had injuries that were caused by more than one person. That is my understanding. Overagainst ( talk) 22:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a passing comment, do you have some academic sources for that analysis - there are articles such as [22] which I find interesting. -- _nonsense ferret 23:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Guess I have to ask you again: Is one POV SPS more reliable than the other? Is one translation superior in your mind and for WP's purpose so we can use it as a source in one article but not in another? Don't you think it would be a good idea to replace those SPSs in both articles? At least in the Knox article the original scanned document in Italian is provided --- not so much in the "Murder of" article (even so, if I remember right, it was there at some point). TMCk ( talk) 23:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no equivalence, an SPS can be a BLP source if it's an SPS which is the BLP subject's or one they may reasonably be assumed to approve of, though clearly not for for things being stated in Wikededia's voice. What I was really complaining about is not the verity of translation of the supreme court written explanation of their overturning the acquittal of AK and RS at the Hellmann court, which was being being drawn on. It was the was the way it was used as reference to state a matter of dispute as if it was a fact thus: " The autopsy concluded that she had been attacked by more than one person" Even if the source was beyond dispute a judgement of an Italian court as to the facts of the case as the forthcoming written explanation of the recent guilty verdict by the Nencini court's re- run of the trial second grade will be, something which is a matter of dispute can not be stated in Wikipedia's voice as a fact. Especially when it amounts to innuendo that a living person is complicit in murder. It's more or less been resolved in Talk now. Overagainst ( talk) 16:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

ferret, here. Overagainst ( talk) 16:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you think that document is? Doesn't seem to be an academic comparative legal analysis of the italian legal system, which is what I referred to above. -- _nonsense ferret 19:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

• This thread is because I wikilinked the name of an article subject and that is now being claimed as a BLP issue. In the opening statement, Overagainst states that she he removed that wikilink and implies that she he was reverted. Could you supply a diff where you removed it? As far as I know this wasn't a revert.

• Her His statement "...but I'm being told in the Murder of Meredith Kercher Talk by multiple editors (who are extremely familiar with the Amanda Knox article) that there is nothing wrong with the Amanda Knox article..." is incorrect and I would like her him to point out where. I didn't say that and neither did LedRush, TMCk or anyone else in the thread that I can see. Everyone was saying " fix it".
   —  Berean Hunter (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

If I misrepresented the prevailing opinion, forgive me. I'm a he. Overagainst ( talk) 17:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I've struck through my comments above to correct for gender. My apologies for the mistake.
 —  Berean Hunter (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

ferret, I stoataly agree that opinion from the former judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann is not an academic paper or as good an overview as the superb one one you ferreted out and took the trouble to draw my attention to. I mustela say, however, that Hellmann's qualifications to opine on the specific question on the meaning of the supreme court ruling weasely merit consideration, as he was until recently a member of that Supreme Court of Cassation. Overagainst ( talk) 14:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, well I have taken a link like that off, from a FA, though people agreed with me so it wasn't unilateral. Overagainst ( talk) 14:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you show the diff please? The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Why? Overagainst ( talk) 15:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Because I asked you nicely and there's no reason not to and it's quicker than wading through your contributions to find it. Thanks. The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You have become evasive. Pretty obvious what you intend doing. here's the edit. on talk.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Overagainst ( talk • contribs) 11:09, 9 February 2014‎ (UTC)

I'm afraid answering my request with "why" is simply the most evasive answer you could have given. Noted. And thanks. P.S. I asked for the diff, not the history of an article, can you be more specific, thanks). The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope, that's not one of your edits. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so you removed a {{ main}} template? What relevance does that have to removing the link to Knox on the Kercher murder page? The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There was a FA review of the Natalee Holloway article that suspended because it became acrimonious and the issues with that link which revolve around creating pages on people who are victims of crime will no doubt be resolved by the FAR. I don't intend to start on that discussion here. However, as you ask the Beth Holloway BLP page is IMO a multiple BLP violation (quotes from her (Beth's) divorce papers, and details her dating history). It could be delinked. I am not aware of any guidance to the effect that when spun of from a crime article, a spun off BLP eponymous page must be linked to as the main page on a person whose notability derives from a crime which is covered in an article. Creating articles on living crime victims has to be done with care. So the Beth Holloway page is not the main article for her. And there is a still to be resolved question of whether it should even exist. As regards Amanda Knox, her notability is similar to Beth Holloway, from a crime; before which she was not famous. If the main article on Amanda Knox is not 'Amanda Knox', and The Murder of Meredith Kercher contains all encyclopedic information on Amanda Knox, no principle says the Amanda Knox article must be linked to, forever. Overagainst ( talk) 17:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

So as I said above, why are you campaigning to have links removed from one article, not all articles? If the target articles are violations of BLP in your mind and therefore taint any article that subsequently links to them, you need to remove (or suggest that all links are removed) in all such places. Is that your plan? If not, it seems incredibly inconsistent to allow one article to link to a violation of BLP but not another. The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Things got too acrimonious at the DoNH, so I've let it lie until the FA resumption, where it will provide ammunition I think. If the BH page is fixed (and I am more or less happy with the AK page now BTW) there probably should be a link, but not in the lede. The link being in the lede is a particular problem. The MoMK lede link to a page about AK, someone whose notability derives from the events covered in the main body of the article is sending the reader off the page and the subject. Knox was not a celebrity before the MoMK. A link in the lede of a Murder of type article is for people like OJ Simpson whose fame predated their involvement in the events described in the article, not someone who became well known as the result of a criminal event. Such people may not want a page about themselves that will go on having things about their ongoing life inserted into it for the foreseeable future. Overagainst ( talk)

User:Overagainst do you have any guideline or policy to back up your opinion of the positioning of linked items? If it's simply your preference to avoid these, in circumstances as defined by you, I suggest you'll not get very far with your endeavours. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Somewhat begs the question of why we would even have two articles in the first place. Amanda Knox is only known for this one unfortunate event and her article is entirely made up of material which belongs in the Murder of MK article. Why would we want to do this? Purely on practical grounds, given the controversy this has engendered and continues to engender, why would we wish to have two articles to watch? -- John ( talk) 18:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Narayan Sai (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Asaram's son Narayan Sai declared absconder". Times of India. 11 November 2013. Retrieved 11 November 2013 Narayan Sai was never an absconding accused for all these days, until he was arrested. His status as absconder was changed on Thursday, when Gujarat high court quashed the non-bailable warrant issued against him by a Surat court after he was charged with rape. [23]

Please also, as part of this discussion, review the removal of this multiply reliably sourced content (IMHO) which should be included per WP:WELLKNOWN. This content has been removed multiple times by User:TheRedPenOfDoom as well as several IP editors, over the past 48 hours, and frankly I feel that the rationale presented by the registered editor, "allegations from a COI source cannot be presented in an NPOV manner" is not sound as the sources are major national media who are reporting statements made by police officials, with the prose in the article matching the sources. It is quite a stretch to call the police COI when they are merely doing their jobs, and the fact that thegovernment official made these statements is not in dispute. Roberticus ( talk) 16:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

WELLKNOWN does not trump WP:BLPCRIME "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." While the arrest is certainly public, that the police who have an inherent conflict of interest are spouting allegations of an admission of guilt is clearly something we do not cover until the guilt has actually been determined in court. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Please review the footnote(#6) at the end of the sentence from WP:BLPCRIME which you cite. It reads (emphasis mine): "Generally, a conviction is secured through court or magisterial proceedings. Accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement do not amount to a conviction. WP:BLPCRIME applies to low-profile individuals and not to well-known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow." Roberticus ( talk) 16:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is a list of recent coverage in a national media, I suppose we can compile similar lists from other national media if necessary, but isn't this enough to determine the subject is indeed a well-known individual? Roberticus ( talk) 17:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

no matter how well known the individual is, reporting that the police have made allegations of a confession before the trial is completely unacceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

But the police have made this statement, which was reported by multiple WP:RS. I don't see, policywise, how the accusation of confession under interrogation, by authoritative officials, when reported by WP:RS, is any different than the other allegations which WP:WELLKNOWN seems to allow coverage of, but am hopeful others will help develop a consensus 1 way or the other here. Roberticus ( talk) 17:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

we have no obligation to report events even if they are in the news. we do have an obligation not to suggest that someone is guilty, particularly when it is based on an allegation that comes from the cops . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"We" are not "suggesting" someone is guilty, the wording is very clear that this is what the police are reporting. "We" are reporting what the sources say, the language is neutral. Your position that nothing can be said on the case until he is proven guilty is clearly incorrect as pointed out by Roberticus. The only question then becomes the quality of the sources, which are high, and the neutrality of the wording, which is neutral. -- Green C 18:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

of course WE are when WE repeat the allegations made by those with a conflict of interest. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Particularly when the allegations of "confession" are specifically being denied. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Fine then lets report this - the police reported he made a confession (prior to obtaining a lawyer), and after he obtained a lawyer, his lawyer says he did not make a confession to the police. Those are the facts. Those facts do not say he is guilty, nor do they suggest he is guilty. -- Green C 17:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Kahlil Byrd (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, Thank you for this work. I am the subject of this article and I am interested in addressing two issues.

1) As the former leader of Americans Elect, we took great care with how the organization was described--in both explanation of mission and in tone. Currently the description of Americans Elect reads:

"During the 2012 presidential election cycle, Americans Elect was a national organization that unsuccessfully sought to nominate and elect a third-party candidate for president[3] by attempting to put a bipartisan presidential ticket on the ballot in all 50 states.[4]"

This is factually inaccurate and has been pointed out to the those diligent and venerable editors of this page. By law, Americans Elect could not nominate a "Third Party Candidate" because the organization was not a "Third Party. As is cited, Americans Elect was 501(c)4 nominating process creating a third pathway for a bi-partisan ticket in the 2012 race. The third party label is language adopted by critics of the organization who attempt to argue the organization had an ideological agenda apart from the mission stated widely in public areas. Upon having this pointed out with sourcing an editor's response was "(People do illegal things all the time. We have a published news source specific to *this* situation (WP:RS always beats WP:SYNTH)

This is the justification used to hold to a factual inacuracy.

2) Those who have attempted to place a new professional position for the subject in this biography have been repeatedly rejected for no understandable reason. Not allowing this revision to take place gives a false impression about the current work of the subject. A personal note here, as a reformer--and specifically a professional builder of organizations throughout the political reform space--my job is not to be a permanent fixture of organizations, but to be a professional manager of organizations as they grow in size and scope. It appears that edits are being made to discredit this work because of time and tenure, yet those are not solid measure of performance and effectiveness. Further, published reports do not match the tonality that specific editors have taken with regard to this biography.

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

Content on page continuously refers to same sources; more varied citations needed.

Stevensommer ( talk) 22:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I need some help or direction with this BLP, please. Full disclosure: we are working on a website for her and are trying to correct a few errors on the biography. For starters, her date of birth. Her correct date of birth is August 29,1964. A previous representative tried to correct the errors but did not follow proper channels and wiki policies. Understandably, an editor had them banned. Please help or point me in the right direction. -- Csmgacct ( talk) 01:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Perri "Pebbles" Reid (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A very quick look at the article talk page suggests that someone tried to edit the article but was unwilling or unable to respond on the article talk page when issues were raised. The first step would be to study the good advice on that talk page and understand that an article has to be encyclopedic in tone (find a softer term than "bankrolled"). Also, details need to be verified (see WP:RS). Do not worry about formatting references—just inserting the URL of a suitable source, or a text description that identifies an article would do. The "Born" section in the infobox is absurd, and if there is a suitable source that would be a good place to start. You could post a suggestion on the article talk page (click "new section" or perhaps "new topic" at the top of Talk:Perri "Pebbles" Reid). Johnuniq ( talk) 02:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

This is the biography of an academic who is almost absent from google scholar (but much of his work is in non-English languages). Much of the sourcing seems dubious to me (self-description, linkedin, etc.) and almost all of the hyperlinked references are to a local (Cairo) newspaper. There are two long sections which represent his quasi-political views, but much of his academic work seems quasi-political. Adding to the confusion, he's now retired, meaning most of his publications are pre-ubiquitous digital availability. Searching behind paywalls reveals a large body of work, including academic reviews of his books. I think what needs to happen to the article is the trimming of most of the 'A culture critic focused on intercultural studies' and 'Intervention in the Arab, Egyptian, and international debate about globalization and cultural hegemonism' sections and expansion of his list of works section to include references to book reviews of his books. Thoughts? Stuartyeates ( talk) 02:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

this article on living persons looks promotional and has no citation provided — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denzy ( talk • contribs) 10:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Also the article looks self written in terms of the usage of words "Just as his heroes the poet Arthur Rimbaud and the painter Paul Gauguin he went to Africa full of romantic ideas, but of course the harsh reality of the African city life is no picnic" Article covers content not relevant to the Living Person,

this requires serious review, complete re-look or deletion as the case maybe, even though I would not suggest the latter as the subject does have notability on google search results

The entire "Controversy" section of this article is written from a biased, non-neutral point of view. The author presents only one side of the controversy regarding Frank Turek's firing by Cisco. The article is, in effect, an attack on Cisco's actions and a contentious appeal in support of Frank Turek. It concludes with " A man was fired simply because of his personal political and religious beliefs—beliefs that are undoubtedly shared by thousands of your very large and diverse workforce." The author should be informed of the Wikipedia's NPOV and BLP principles and asked to delete or neutralize the "Controversy" section of the article. -- KellyArt ( Talk) 19:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I just blocked Dead Goldfish ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a disruptive single-purpose account fixated on belittling a small number of people, chief among whom is James McGibney (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I can't imagine why anybody would dislike Mr. McGibney... oh, well, perhaps I can, but that's no excuse. I would be astounded if the user did not evade the block, please ping me if this happens, and if anyone feels like wading through the mire of the article's history and beating it into some kind of shape, that'd be appreciated. Thanks. Guy ( Help!) 19:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Sam Shepard (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

wiki should include 1993 movie pelican brief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.211.98.102 ( talk) 21:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Given this WMF blog post, I've created Theodore Katsanevas. I will shortly ask one or other of our Greek colleagues to add the Greek-language references referred to in the blog post. No doubt it would be sensible for extra eyes to be watching the new article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Block evading sockpuppet Nil Einne ( talk) 15:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia is supposed to take care with information about living people, and nephew Fabio and son Tonino are surviving relations of Ferruccio Lamborghini who died in 1993, as is his daughter Patrizia. But the following is taken from a letter to an online car group. "Wikipedia, the free on-line encyclopedia that anyone can edit, has articles about Ferrucio Lamborghini and Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. that do these subjects justice. However there is a corner of Wikipedia called Wikipedia Reference Desk with its own "Search the archives" box that gets a surprising result. You see it if you type in "Ferraris rival" or "REALLY nice sports car" and see that in each case the first "hit" talks about a "Lamborgini" - yes, it is mispelled like that. A closer look shows the misspelling is endemic to the Desk, going back to 2008. misspellings Wikipedia is supposed to maintain reliably sourced information, and one need not look further than the badge on each of our cars to get the spelling right. It's LAMBORGHINI with an "H"! Incredibly, the rules enforced by Administrators of the Wikipedia Ref. Desk prevent the misspelling (which I feel is offensive to the Lamborghini family) being corrected or even questioned! Attempts to draw attention to the correct spelling have been abruptly deleted by them in order to leave the wrong spelling unchallenged." 84.209.89.214 ( talk) 23:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC) The existence of a misspelled name in ancient reference desk archives isn't even remotely a concern of this noticeboard. Find somewhere else to engage in necrophilic nit-picking nonsense... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC) WP:BLP policy with which this noticeboard is concerned applies both to mainspace articles and talk pages. Necrophilia is not a term relevant to biographic errors about living persons. Tonino Lamborghini and Patrizia né Lamborghini are both mentioned in Wikipedia. The spelling error has been reported outside Wikipedia so the way in which it is handled is already in public view. 84.209.89.214 ( talk) 04:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC) The members of the "online car group" need to get a real life. Three "endemic" talk page postings misspelling the car's name is not a BLP issue. -- NeilN talk to me 14:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies everywhere, even in draft space, and Draft:Steve Clark seems to be an extreme example of why this is necessary. This article is purportedly about a man "Best known for foundering NPI Research Development Inc with more than 425 subsidiary domestic and international corporations", who supposedly owns "7,782 USA Patents in the combine fields of Mechanical, Electrical and Software Engineering" and "9,522 industrial publications in all disciplines of engineering, business and finance", and supposedly has a net worth of "(US $17.3) billion dollars"; and yet, not one of the purported sources for any of this checks out, and as far as I could find there aren't any. And then the page goes on with long sections about the subject's "Personal life" and "News Tabloid Scandals" including alleged personal financial details, child custody issues, and sexual abuse allegations, all of which (if not entirely fictional) involve other persons (including children), complete with copies of letters from lawyers.

As one can see from the edit history, this article was created in Wikipedia space in November 2013 (with very different content), then became the subject of numerous edits 11 days ago that have changed the content repeatedly. On February 7 another editor started Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sir Steven Clark PhD, primarily on the ground that the article was in the wrong edit space, but also noting that the sources don't support the content and suggesting it might be a hoax. Others have expressed similar concerns on the talk page. The article was finally moved to draft space today, but the contentious and unsupported content is still there. I placed some tags on the article to make these concerns clearer, [24] but another editor removed the tags, on the ground that the article is a "work in process". [25]

More leeway is appropriate in draft space, but there are limits. At this point, review and opinions from other editors would be helpful. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 04:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

All of the files need to be deleted with fire, for starters. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 05:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Blow it up! -- Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It appears that all versions of this draft article have now been oversighted. So there is nothing more to be done here, unless somebody wants to bring the article back. EdJohnston ( talk) 22:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The article Z Berg (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was at the wrong title for most of its life. It has three sources, all trivial, none independent. If anyone cares deeply about this article could they please add sources? Otherwise I will redirect it. Unsourced biographies are, as we all know, a minefield. Guy ( Help!) 10:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm doing some work on it. Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

If anyone has the time, Norman Carlson and Francis J. Mulhern could use a lot of work; both are listed at List of Roger W. Jones Award for Executive Leadership recipients. Thanks, – Connormah ( talk) 05:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Bartlett High School (Anchorage, Alaska) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been some content, highly detailed, on this article for quite a while regarding several sex scandals that occurred at the school. When I saw it, I removed it all, as I could not see a way to rewrite it. There were three teachers named by name that were discussed in detail, and only one of them ever got any time (and he was not convicted--he plead "nolo"). The other two were either not prosecuted at all or the case was dropped with no conviction. Additionally, the principal was implicated in some professional misconduct in regards to the handling of the case, again with no legal action taken against him.

Apparently, the state's statutory rape law was changed and according to the article, the new law was named after the teacher. All the references are paywalled. An IP has been reverting my removals and has not discussed it at all at the talk page. In fairness neither had I. That has been rectified. I would like someone with more BLP experience than I to take a look at it and give advice on how to proceed. If in fact the law became known by the teacher's name, use of that teacher's name may be appropriate, and some discussion of the events may be appropriate without names. I also feel the length of the section is quite WP:UNDUE, and the use of faculty names is also discouraged in school article guidelines. Not looking for sanctions for anyone, just some help. Thanks! John from Idegon ( talk) 16:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

A number of potentially useful non-paywalled reliable sources covered the Carlson case, including the New York Times, the Associated Press, and local media. There was a notable dispute between law enforcement and the school district over the investigation of the case, culminating in lawsuits. These sources satisfy the BLP side of the equation, although I think you're absolutely right to also be concerned about undue weight and the volume and tone of coverage. It's a tricky issue. MastCell  ^Talk 17:20r2g015, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

That solves the BLP issue on Carlson. It does not on the others named. We have no source stating anyone has been convicted of anything. I agree that since Carlson had the law named after him, privacy is moot. But the other teachers who were convicted of nothing? And another IP has put it back in. Would going to RPP until this can be hashed out appropriate? John from Idegon ( talk) 18:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

In other places we have solved this by having a separate article about the scandal. For example Marylands School and Sexual abuse scandal at Marylands School, Christchurch. The the scandal isn't notable enough for it's own article, there's probably no need to cover it. Stuartyeates ( talk) 23:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The initial posting about the sex scandals years ago was short. Over time, it has become larger because many former students and teachers added details about the crime, the law being added, etc. The scandal actually started decades before the teachers were caught and affected far more people than the media ever reported. It doesn't violate any rule here. Two teachers are named - one had a law named after him, the other was convicted and sent to prison. It was front-page news for years. It's not a small thing to be swept under the rug, much less deleted wholesale from the entry. 97.124.238.87 ( talk) 18:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, the other teacher WAS convicted and went to prison for five years. The contention that the article names "other teachers who were convicted of nothing" is totally erroneous. A guilty plea is a conviction, period. 97.124.238.87 ( talk) 19:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The size of the section is WP:UNDUE. Something should probably be in there about Carlson. The fact that it was a major story locally is not a factor. These kinds of things occur on a rather alarming frequency all over the world. The fact that it was a topic of discussion locally for several years frankly is not at all important. This article is not for the local community, it is for the rest of the world. I would propose trimming it down to one or two sentences in the history section, briefly discussing the high points of the Carlson law and the events that went with it. Reference it well to non-paywalled sources so if a reader is interested in the details they can follow the references. Discussion of the other teachers is simply not appropriate, nor is the discussion of the principal's roll in it. The copy states that one teacher was not charged with anything, and the other one plead no contest. Neither of those is a conviction despite how your personal feeling about it may be. The principal was not charged with anything. This isn't the school's website or a notice board. It is an encyclopedia, which is supposed to summarize the important events in the school's history. We have policies that exist to protect people's privacy, and we have content guidelines to give articles that are edited by many the proper balance for the intended audience, the entire English-speaking world. John from Idegon ( talk) 21:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Clearly you're not an attorney because pleading guilty is a conviction, period. If you google "Satch Carlson Law" you will find that it was the model for states nationwide which modified their own laws to reflect the protections that came out of that case. No offense, but you need to do actual research rather than make assumptions. You're in no position to decide that the size is "undue." It's disconcerting that someone is making such an effort to protect child predators by turning a blind eye to fact, case law and a well-annotated history. I'll take this up with someone with more authority. 75.166.131.134 ( talk) 22:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I have conceded that there should be some mention of Carlson. There remains one teacher in the content that was there that the content stated was not charged with anything. Neither was the principal. That has to go and is appropriate discussion for this forum. I would appreciate some input here as to whether a "nolo" plea is to be considered a conviction for our BLP purposes. And I would appreciate a volunteer here explaining to the IP how to properly conduct himself at noticeboards and in content disputes. Pretty much, the rest of this belongs on the article talk page, where at this point no-one is responding. John from Idegon ( talk) 19:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Prada gender discrimination case (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rina Bovrisse (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This was originally reported to WP:EAR#Help, and while both NeilN and I have taken a rather quick run-through of the first article and removed some of the more egregious WP:NPOV issues, I think there are some significant BLP issues remaining that need a more careful touch to address. Specifically, in the first article, the Background section makes multiple statements, sourced mostly to prominent blogs like Salon and Huffington Post, attributing quotations to adverse parties in the lawsuits as fact (rather than allegations). I'm really not sure how to handle it at this point; I'm of a mind to just take an axe to the whole section, but I really don't think there'd be anything left, and given the coverage it's gotten, I don't think AfD is the right place for this.

As to the Bovrisse article, I've only taken a brief look at it, but it smacks of puffery on the same level as the first article. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 05:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggest Miuccia Prada (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) be added to that list. I just removed a highly misleading quotation [26] where it was suggested the CEO of Prda said

and she has a [sic] black hair naturally... it was disgusting"

which seems to imply he was saying natural black hair is disgusting, but what was actually said per the source in the artice was

"She had her hair bleached blonde ... She is Japanese, and she has a [sic] black hair naturally ...She wore something different from Prada's brand image, she didn't care for her hairstyle...She didn't take care of her blonde hair and it was obvious, it was disgusting."

This was still contentious since amongst other things, as per the source, the Bovrisse hair is actually naturally brown not black and was evidentally not bleached while she was working for Prada but what our article implied was clearly very different from what was actually said.

Edit: I've now removed the entire sectionparagraph as it had little to do with Prada herself. It was a statement by the Prada Japan CEO which our article sort of implied but either way I don't see how it's sufficiently relevant for the article on Miuccia Prada

Nil Einne ( talk) 06:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I've now removed the entire section as from what I can tell, none of the sources mention Miuccia herself. Considering her high level involvement in the company (although the case appears to concern the Japanese division), there may be merit to mention the case in her article briefly, but it will need much better sources and I'm having trouble finding any. [27] mentions the case, but only to say she wasn't implicated in it. [28] briefly mention her and the discrimination case, but only in a fairly roundabout way. [29] is not bad, except it's only an interview with Rina Bovrisse where a suggestion is made of Miuccia's involvement. Nil Einne ( talk) 12:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. the Miuccia Prada article definitely needs a read-through. As to Bovrisse, I just stripped out a massive section consisting of little more than links to media coverage of the legal case. Definite WP:IINFO case. The article needs more work though. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 11:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Wanted to confirm an update is within the rules: A controversy section have been added to Stuart_Semple regarding a newspaper report of the individual not paying staff. It quotes the newspaper article. Is that ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onemorechris ( talk • contribs) 00:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

An entire section based on a single newspaper report seems undue to me. Also per WP:CSECTION, we discourage the creation of separate 'controversy' sections. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Semple's explanation, however, needs to be there. Collect ( talk) 14:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There are two more blog posts from one person on the subject. There is also a statement from him. would linking, would that be enough? If There is no controversy section, where is best to put this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onemorechris ( talk • contribs) 16:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Substantial (rapper) is now weakly sourced was horrendously weakly sourced. I trimmed down a bit, but it still has a facebook link and no actually strong RS sources for much of anything. Is he even remotely notable? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the basic claim of notability seems to be related to his work in Japan, so I would think that we'd need some good Japanese sources for that. Certainly doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSICBIO based on English-language sources. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 17:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping someone could give some attention to a situation on this article Jack Edwards (sportscaster). There's been a slow motion edit war going back at least two months. Cliff note version, sportscaster criticized opposing player. Sportscaster was criticized for what he said. Sportscaster appologizes. One side thinks this is important to have in the article. The other thinks it's a minor incident unworthy of inclusion. Every few days it gets reverted from one version to the other. I am not neutral in this area, (Not real COI, just due to being a fan of one team). I won't add any other opinion except hopefully the article can be stabilized either in or out. thanks.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 15:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Being at work I don't really have time to look in to this, but following an ANI report (the situation got ugly with legal threats), I think it's prudent to have this noticeboard take a look at the Litchenberg article. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 16:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Newly accused/admitted murderers. Probably on the edge of WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME could use additional eyes as the story gets wider circulation. Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Important to distinguish the two. Only one has claimed to be responsible for multiple murders and those claims have not been substantiated by investigators. If true, we'll have to split the article. They would not both belong in "serial killer" categories. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 20:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Defender miz ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

History of creating unreferenced BLPs and adding unsourced information to articles. Multiple warnings by different editors to user's talk page, with no response from user.

I started two AFDs for unreferenced BLPs created by the user, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rory Thost and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Preis.

Would appreciate attention from editors here as well.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt ( talk) 06:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: Problematic edit history includes prior creation of a hoax article, discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxing' Joe. — Cirt ( talk) 06:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

See also the deletion history of Rebecca Frasier and the multiple related warnings about that at User talk:Defender miz, I can't see the deleted history but it looks like the user may have re-created the page after deletion. — Cirt ( talk) 12:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to bring to your attention a strange delate process which happened with the article of Achal Prabhala, a member of the Wikimedia Foundation advisory board: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achal Prabhala (2nd nomination). My impression is that the discussion goes beyond the article and the notability of this person. I have met Prabhala at Wikimania and – working on African-related topics – I exchanged and discussed with him; I don't specifically like him, but I have worked on his article and from sources he seems defiantly notable. It would be healthy if someone else not linked to this person can check what has happened and if his article really does not meet the relevant requirements. thank you! -- Iopensa ( talk) 09:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Ayman Mohyeldin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Edits made over last week are biased and editor continuously undoes edits to remove bias. Also, sources to an opinion piece.