Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive188

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upon further review, it might be the same guy. [1] David in DC (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Clearly the same guy. Here's my work [2]. Please note the final edit summary and help if you can. Sources may appear in the coming days that can serve as substitutes. David in DC (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have raised this matter at WP:ANI. [3] I have also made it clear in deleting the offending matter again that I will take this to the WMF if necessary - it is worth noting that the supposed 'highly reliable sources' included alleged 'court documents' actually hosted on the website of a business Rooks has been in a legal dispute with... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm going offline for a while. Could others please keep an eye on this article? An IP is adding the implication that the victim is an accomplice. [4] There has been discussion on this point on the article's talk page. The article's wording may well be improvable - but it's a sensitive BLP issue and needs consensus. I've warned the IP on their talk page and in my last revert's edit summary about the consequences of edit warring. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

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

This allegation (that the victim was complicit in her abduction and/or the murder of her mother and brother) was exhaustively discussed here [5] and on the article's Talk page[6] weeks ago. There has never been any official statement to support the allegation, and official statements discredit it. Unless this changes, the allegation should be immediately reverted as a BLP violation if reintroduced. Dwpaul (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Certain users have blatantly violated the BLP policy by putting some extremely maligning, libelous and controversial sentences to be made appearing as Wikipedia voice, although the matter is not proven anywhere. The person mentioned in the article is a highly popular and respected political leader occupying a post as democratically elected Chief Minister of a large Indian state. Link: The last sentence if this para. [7] has extremely hateful content appearing as Wikipedia's voice. While discussing it on the talk page, these bunch of users threaten to block/ notify for not towing to their line. These users are Sitush, Darkness Shines, Maunus, RegentsPark. The user Darkness Shines is accused of being a proxy of a banned user T-banned MarshalN20. Many others have raised objections to make certain malintentional sentences to be removed or not made appear as Wikipedia voice, but they steamroll everyone, term it as consensus (which is infact discussion among these bunch of users only) and threaten to block the person. One has not seen so much vitriolic, hateful content in any other BLP. Even a news report termed as hoax has been included in the article [8]. Request to please look into the issue and make some modifications in libelous contents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by True win (talk • contribs) 03:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Done GiantSnowman 11:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editors continually reporting a biased statement, citing tumblr.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RVIVR

Thanks!

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

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

I'm reposting a request[9] from the Help Desk here:

Dear Wikip33edia

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

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

RW Johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.227.243.59 (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC) [10]

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

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

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

The following has been repeatedly added to the article.

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

The actual source contains.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the NYT

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

MilesMoney's edit.

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

PrarieKid's edit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, here's [11] another source. Ignore the site, just read the quote, which we can support from any number of highly reliable sources.

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

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

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

Sorry for the slow response; I was distracted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warned the IP on their Talk page that the information was false (the wrestler's dad is Steve)[12]) and that citations are needed for future edits. Dwpaul (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Wikipedia Team:

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

Kind regards,

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

The information on the subject's performance in the 200m Individual Medley at the Sydney 2000 event is supported by a reliable source (the official results document[13]), though the characterization as "a poor swim" may not be NPOV. Otherwise it is all factual and should not be removed. Other editors may know if this is a fair characterization to make in the terminology of the sport, or not. Dwpaul (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Last January Jodie Foster made a speech at the Golden Globes. In it she "came out" but without coming out, this is, she said "I already did my coming out about 1,000 years ago back in the stone age".[14] This was discussed here (archive) and the consensus was that as Foster never mentioned the word "lesbian" she should not be referred to as such, nor should be included into a LGBT category. The consensus has challenged by an user at its talkpage (Talk:Jodie_Foster#Redo_consensus), but there again was clear she should excluded per WP:BLPCAT. Ten months later, @Hearfourmewesique: is deciding the consensus to exclude should be ignored, first in the article itself, and later with knowledge that this has been discussed in the past. Despite the fact, Hear4 is persistently violating the BLP policy in the article's talk page as well.[15][16] Can we have more eyes about this, because it is clear that WP:SECONDARY references cannot decide the sexuality of a person, and that doing it can create legal problems to Wikipedia (Tom Cruise#Litigation), because Hear4 is applying WP:IDHT about the community consensus to exclude, as denoted at the relevant discussion Talk:Jodie_Foster#Golden_Globes_and_speech..._again.3F. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 00:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The other non-LGBT sexualities are: Asexual, pansexual, queer, intersexual, heteroflexible, homoflexible, transvestite or transexual, and all of them are not covered complety by the "LGBT" term (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender), and the category Category:LGBT actors requires "actors who are, or are known to have been, gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender." Also, WP:BLPCAT requires that "Categories regarding ... sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the ... orientation in question, and the subject's sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." At the moment Foster joked "I am... single" she could easily said "I am [insert sexuality here]", but she didn't and she had her reasons to not say it. Foster "came out 1,000 years ago", "came out" does not mean "come out the closet" by default, it means multiple things, and there are several articles that don't say "Jodie Foster is lesbian", just say "she came out", and some others say "she came out, lesbian or bisexual who cares?",[17][18][19][20][21][22] because she never said "I'm lesbian", and you are blatanty saying that because she "came out" and she is "dating a woman" the result is that she is "lesbian" automatically; that's defamation, and I already told you what happens when secondary references write defamatory articles.

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

• "Talk is pretty clear about her being confirmed as gay". This edit is a blatant violation of the BLP policy alone. It was an unsourced addition of contentious content about a living person. Also, talk was "pretty clear" she never confirmed that, that's your point of view.
• "There is no reason whatsoever to tiptoe around the subject. Also, three more good sources." A violation of a consensus to exclude this information, despite the fact you already knew there was a consensus to exclude. You cited three references HP, Reuters and NYT, the last one is the only reference that never says "she is lesbian", the question is where the HP and Reuters got that information if she never said it? I can't believe this is more neutral and objective than HP and Reuters.
• "Do not remove sourced information. It's been discussed on the talk page, and there are multiple sources, including Foster herself, that back this up.", can you explain where "Foster herself" said "I'm a lesbian actress"? None of your references "back this up"
• You said above and in the article "Foster's speech during the 2013 Golden Globes ceremony was widely reported as her coming out". Apparently you haven't cared to read the article because if you had done it you would have noticed you are adding redundant content:[23] "Foster publicly came out during the 2013 Golden Globes ceremony.[67][68][69] She broke up with her long-time partner, Cydney Bernard, in 2008. They had been together since 1993.[70][71] In her acceptance speech upon receiving the Cecil B. DeMille Award at the 2013 Golden Globe Awards, she commented about her sexual orientation..." First, you are adding content that it was already there, second, you are removing a logical order to the paragraph: "she came out in 2013, she dated a woman for 15 years, she came out in 2013", what's the sense of doing that?

At Talk:Jodie Foster, you said.

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

Here at BLPN:

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

Your own background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this [24] Appropriate? I think it violates WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS. I am at 2 RR and I don't want to go any further. I especially find the term 'racist remarks' a bit much. Plus, I would like some outside eyes. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article was proposed for deletion but was dePRODed just a week ago. See comment here.[25] This is an AfD or PROD issue, not a BLP issue per se. Please see procedures at those links. The article has also already been flagged to indicate it needs to be improved with sources and in tone.Dwpaul (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

For your notice: I noticed a few edits on articles I watch where a new user, User:Rpinkett, has inserted references to "Randal Pinkett" and his career in articles about Randal Pinkett and institutions connected to Pinkett. Not sure if this is the actual Randal Pinkett, but this smacks of COI/Self-promotion if it is...while Pinkett is a notable person, I'm rather certain this is not entirely proper, but not knowing how y'all seem to go about it. User's contributions: [26] --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It appears the situation is being adequately addressed through other channels. [27] But thanks for the report.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Antonia Bird died several days ago. There are two dates of birth that are given among RS: 1959 ([28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]) and 1951 ([34], [35]). Her page lists 1951, and there has been some discussion on the talk page about it already. A user claims to have found a birth record of her from 1951. The other page this affects is the Deaths in 2013 list, where age of death is listed. So what's the deal? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

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

BBC also reports her age as 54[36]; that's what's cited at Deaths in 2013. I would take that as pretty reliable. Dwpaul (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F. King Alexander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Diff: [37] "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." User Pokey5945 repeatedly posts link on talk page of BLP F. King Alexander to an individual's blog (which the user calls an "online book"). The blog is libellous and directly violates Verifiability standards. The maintainer of the blog also is involved in a significant off-wiki dispute; the author of the "online book" is suing the subject of the article: http://www.daily49er.com/news/2011/09/05/fea-professor-chair-sue-university-for-6-million/#.Ud980UGTgWk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editors of this board are invited to participate in the following RfC.[38] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Seems as though an editor is performing a hatchet job at the Paul Tanaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article using sources that do not conform to WP:RS: [39]. — Myasuda (talk)

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

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

Please see "Garbling and deletion of 'Controversy' section" in the talk page about the article on Daisaku Ikeda (leader of a large religious organization), and feel free to respond to my comment there. (Incidentally, this comment mentions two other editors; I've just now notified both of them.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm still waiting and hoping for a response. -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Quite honestly looking at the initial removal of information I cannot begin to imagine what the problem is. And of course there is no such thing as In Wikipedia there is a clear rule that if any thing written maligning the dignity of a person it should be deleted immediately with out contest as stated in the talk page. There's a difference between clearly libelous or defamatory information, and negative information that is well-sourced and does not fall into undue weight territory. And then there's WP:IDONTLIKEIT which seems to be the real problem here. There's a lot of OR there as well from User:Ikedako and impressively worded summaries about "clarifying" this and that usually indicate that the editor is emotionally invested in the topic. This looks like more to me like something that belongs in DRN, not BLPN. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Frog. I agree with much of what you say, but I'm unenthusiastic about bringing the matter up on WP:DRN -- the requirements there for policy citation, filling in blanks, diff provision and so forth seem alarming. I hope this doesn't make me seem lazy. -- Hoary (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I've resuscitated the "controversy" section, rearranged it, and made other changes.

Anyone reading this would be right to wonder what the hell an experienced editor is doing, boasting of readding a "controversy" section to a BLP. But while knees are jerking, do also note that this (admittedly messy) section alternates between sections more or less critical of the biographee and praise for him; that I've rearranged its content so that the last word goes to some person explaining away criticisms of all major figures; that there's also an "accomplishments" section; that other sections list what might be called accomplishments; and that there's a general haziness about what should be attributed to the man and what to the organization. Editors with more time and energy than I have but no more emotional investment (as Frog nicely puts it above) would be most welcome to give this article a very thoroughgoing revision. -- Hoary (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it looks a lot better :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Naved Akhtar is a research scholar in Department of Mathematics in Jamia Millia Islamiahttp://jmi.ac.in.... He is cleared GATEhttp://gate.iitk.ac.in exam in 2012 and CSIR NEThttp://csirhrdg.res.in in 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naved00786 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

We don't seem to have an article about this person (you?). This board is intended to report problems with existing biographies. If you're asking whether or not you can create an article about yourself, please see WP:BIO and try using the Articles for Creation facility. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Tveit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Norbert Leo Butz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

hey all, I have noticed that on Aaron Tveit is mentioned that he's Norbert Leo Butz's spouse and vice versa. I believe it's not true as both are straight. Can anyone check? Just came across their page and it seemed strange to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.102.220.56 (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted both, as unsourced. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It's now been mentioned in at least one reliable source [40] that his son was a member of a Facebook group where they boasted of apparent crimes (sex with someone below the age of consent). People tried to add this earlier without sources (it was widely mentioned in social media), but even with the new sources I don't see it belongs as it's about an apparently NN possibly non minor son who so far has not even been charged with any crime, and not Anthony Ray Parker himself. Either way more eyes will be helpful as this is currently getting a lot of attention here in NZ. Nil Einne (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

BLP requires multiple reliable sources in order to make contentious claims. This is obviously a contentious claim. Until more sources care to comment on the sons membership in the group, this should not remain in the article.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Now that one has started, I don't think the number of sources is likely to be an issue [41] [42] [43] one of the reasons I didn't really concentrate on this aspect. Some sources are quoting the NZ Herald (I didn't include these ones) but in all of these they don't really say that suggesting that even if it did originate in the Herald, they are basically taking it on themselves. In any case, there seems to be at least two sources, NZ Herald and TVNZ/One News. Nil Einne (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to watch this for you, but I can't see any reason to keep this out of the article now it's sourced. Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Javier Campopiano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

To Whom It May Concern:

Please delete the page "Javier Campopiano." The information regarding Jc/TBWA is false. The agency does not exist. Furthermore, Javier was NOT fired from Draftfcb - he continues to lead the New York agency as Chief Creative Officer. The external links section which lists a supposed Jc/TBWA URL does not link to an agency but to a software company.

Best,

Mansura Ghaffar— Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.200.144.7 (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You can nominate the page for deletion by following this guide. In the meantime I've removed the excessive unsourced list of "key people" and clients, as well as everything else not supported by a citation. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Rajeev Karwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IPs insist on inserting a paragraph about "abuse of policewomen" which at this point is nothing more than allegations. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 13:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Various IPs and an SPA figured it would be "funny" to claim the subject passed away in an accident. Reported to OTRS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 14:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if there will be a reply to this question of mine about the matter. -- Hoary (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

IP 202.67.40.28 has been violating WP:BLP and especially WP:BLPCAT, even after the message that I left on his or her talk page that he or she should stop doing that. The IP is also violating WP:Verifiability with regard to deceased people. I brought this matter here, but if it is best suited at WP:ANI because of quicker administrative action, then so be it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, most of the ones I spot checked are unsourced. Perhaps correct, but unsourced nonetheless. If they don't stop after your warning it might be worth reporting them to ANI. I also left them a message with some more information. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the help, FreeRangeFrog. Flyer22 (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The article title Martha Fineman should be changed to Martha Albertson Fineman. This is her full name and I know for a fact she would like the article title to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Samantha j14 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 5 November 2013

The sources are mixed with usage, with some using the middle initial and some not. Very few appear to use the full name. I moved the page to Martha A. Fineman. Hopefully that will satisfy policy and the subject. Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Her current biographies have the full name. More than a few of the references do, too. All the external links. It looks like every paper she wrote since the early Nineties. Her newest book uses the full name. Actually all of her books. I think the abbreviated initial will cause more confusion not less. It could be that the second name is an additional surname, rather than a personal name, as her early papers (1980s) look like they were written under Martha L. Fineman. No initial provides maximum disambiguation, and is in line with what people have seen from her books and scholarly works. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Two kinds of pork, your edit summary says the subject's site uses the initial. What site is that? It doesn't look like she has a site. Could you explain what you meant, please? __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Her faculty page from Emory. FWIW using her full name isn't a problem. Someone will have to fix this because it looks like her full name redirects to the current version with the initialTwo kinds of pork (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I'll figure out the technical change. I've never requested one before, so it's something new. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Done: she's now "Martha Albertson Fineman" as requested. -- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Reggie Burnette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is a BLP nightmare. Would someone please take a look at it as a matter of urgency, I just don't have time at the moment. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I removed the offending material, primarily because it was formatted horribly. Anyone who wants to add it back should do so properly, and not make the bio unbalanced. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Would someone else look at this? One editor wants to put in a long section about an arrest, which makes the page seem like a public shaming.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

In that form it's a gross WP:UNDUE issue (to say the least). And the source ("arrests.org"??) is unreliable at best. Nevermind the formatting issues. But, the claims can be sourced, so there's that. I'm not going to add negative information to a bio, but if User:Former51 insists on adding it, there needs to be just about one neutrally-worded line, and sourced correctly. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't object to the arrest being included, but it certainly is undue in the form being presented.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Glenn Greenwald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are several statements about Glenn Greenwald's past, particularly in the Businessman section regarding his career as a litigation attorney for a porn company that are cited from a New York Daily News article that several other sources cite as libelous. The way the information is phrased itself in the Wikipedia article seems to be somewhat misleading. I am not completely certain these statements are true. They could be, but I think, especially given the sensitive nature of this article, all the elements stated as facts should be thoroughly examined. If it is going to say that Greenwald was a partner in a porn distribution company, there should be additional sources aside from the New York Daily News. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tessayessa (talk • contribs) 04:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The New York Daily News article appears to be generally accurate and balanced. Greenwald gives his side of the story to the New's reporter and the claims that he was involved in a porn business are part of the public record. I personally don't see that this is a BLP issue. Do you discount the NY Daily News as not being a reliable source? Maybe the editors at the reliable source noticeboard can help determine if that is a well-founded concern. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, the New York Daily News is pretty much a tabloid. Nothing in the NYDN should be used about controversial content about a living person unless it has also been covered by a mainstream press, in which case we would use the mainstream press. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please could experienced editors keep an eye on the Max Mosley article, in case any edits (including mine) break any Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, specifically those on privacy, and those on linking to illegal material. See my notes at Talk:Max Mosley#Original research removed. -84user (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Perfectly fine, and good job. If you get any pushback let us know. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 15:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohja_Kahf This reads like a vanity page -- listing US 'honors' no one's ever heard of and not one sentence in this piece has a footnote. None of it is sourced. It reads as if the subject wrote it herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.52.148 (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

A new editor persists in changing the current, generally NPOV view version to one that whitewashes Brooks actions.[44] [45] [46] Edward321 (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly so - but given that Brooks died in 1857, I think it is stretching things to suggest that it is of any relevance to this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for posting on the wrong noticeboard. 05:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like a second opinion on this, given the several notable persons involved. Hcobb (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the company is particularly notable, though the bribery case is. Perhaps an article name change is in order?Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

A reader contacted Wikimedia. VRTS ticket # Ticket ID parameter missing. She is a relative of the current owner of a home mentioned in Enfield Poltergeist. She is understandably unhappy that the exact address is listed.

I realize that the address is a supported by a reliable source, so we have to right to include it, if we think it contributes to the reader's understanding of the article.

I don't think the readers' understanding of the events will be diminished if the street address and number are removed.

It is causing distress to the current owners of the home, who are unconnected (AFAIK) to the people involved in the event. As noted in the policy, articles should be written with regard for the subject's privacy. While the current owner is technically not the subject, that adds to the issue, rather than mitigating it. We should balance the desire for privacy against the value that it adds to the article. I don't see this as a close call, and think it should be removed from the article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree - I dont see that the exact address adds anything to that article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed address, rephrased, and placed a warning comment. Jim1138 (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Many of the references list the address, one [2] article's title and URL is the address of the house. I would guess the current tenants get many unwanted visitors, most probably not from the article. Jim1138 (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be useful for a link to this discussion to appear on the article's talk page (since I've only discovered it after reverting Jim1138's edits). However, the address is a matter of fact, supported by various sources, and the current occupant is not the subject of the article. There isn't, as far as I can see, a valid reason in Wikipedia terms (eg WP:PRIVACY for removing it, any more than there would be a valid reason for removing the address of any other notable event from their respective articles.Ghughesarch (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Leave out the addresss. I don't see how the address contributes to the article. If someone is very interested in it, they can and will find the address elsewhere. Jim1138 (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I support the address removal and now on my watchlist♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Utterly ridiculous. Just clicking on links from the article reveals the exact address. It's a pity the current occupant apparently has trouble over it (I wouldn't know, as I can't see the ticket, how reliable that claim is), but we don't engage in that sort of censorship. The genie is out of the bottle on this one, and it's pointless - and wrong - to try to put it back. Ghughesarch (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It isnt censorship as the address isnt required, we can only affect what goes into wikipedia not what happens outside and we have a BLP policy to avoid distress to living ppl and there is no question the occupants of the house are living ppl and so our BLP policy MUST include them♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Your interpretation of how the BLP policy is adhered too is absolutely wrong. We avoid contentious unsourced or poorly sourced claims. As this address is sourced, it doesn't run into BLP. Does Inlcuding the address help the article? Probably not. Does it hurt it? Of course not. Perhaps a happy compromise would be to include the street name and leave it at that.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIVACY specifically says that articles should not include postal addresses for living people, regardless of whether they are poorly sourced or not.

Furthermore, I find the argument "it's okay because this is not the address of the subject, it's the address of an unrelated third party" to be wikilawyering. The intent of the policy is to prevent the publication of private information of people, not of "subjects", regardless of whether the literal wording refers to subjects only. Ken Arromdee (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It might be possible to suggest mentioning the street name on the talk page but as a choice of including or excluding the street name, under no circumstances should the postal address be included. BLP also demands we respect people who arent notable, not merely those who, for whatever reason, are notable. The address belongs to these living, unnotable people and of course BLP and wikipedia supports protecting their privacy and not walking all over it♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The intent of BLPPRIVACY is clearly defined: to prevent identity theft. Would we not publish the address of the Sorbonne because a caretaker lived there?Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Err, we dont publish the address of the caretaker of the Sorbonne, or that of any caretakers throughout the worl. If these ppl in Enfield were making money from living there such as running a museum there it would be entirely different, and indeed we might not publish the address to avoid supporting an outside party's commerial endeavours. We do publish George Osborne's address but it isnt a comparable situation as Osborne chose to live where he does, indeed had to fight for the privelege♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 04:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The caretaker of the Sorbonne would be aware of the privacy situation before taking up residence. The current resident of Green likely not given the request. Jim1138 (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with laws in the UK regarding a stigmatized property, but I would assume disclosure would be mandated even for a rental. I've no idea how council housing works. As I've said before, there really isn't a problem with removing the address, but the privacy issues raised here by some are nonsense. The full address is readily available in the linked sources, anyone that is remotely interested in finding the exact location will have no trouble doing so.Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The Sorbonne is not deemed to be only a location for Poltergeist activity, a claim in this article that is currently backed up by non-reputable, credulous sources. The claims are unevenly moderated ("The activity occurred...") and it's written as if it's trying to tell a good ghost story rather than inform that actual people were acting fraudulently. It's not just the address that should be removed. It's a deeply unbalanced article that is not fair to the people living there now. __ E L A Q U E A T E 10:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

There really isn't any more of a WP:PRIVACY issue here than there is for the current occupants of any similar location, eg 112 Ocean Avenue, Amityville The Amityville Horror, or neighbours of the site of Borley Rectory, or the neighbours of the former 16 Wardle Brook Avenue, Hattersley Moors_murders#Initial_report. The address where the events took place is known and widely publicised in articles on the "poltergeist" activity, the current occupants' names or other details are (rightly) not given in the article, and expecting this to be made a special case because of some (alleged) sensitivity on their part would set an absurd precedent. Ghughesarch (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

However, as Green Street is about half a mile long and includes 350+ addresses, it seems (perhaps) a reasonable compromise, to me, to give the street name but leave out the number? The matters raised by Elaqueate really have nothing to do with this particular issue and belong on the talk page for the article Ghughesarch (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

BLPPRIVACY doesn't say that you can't publish the address on Wikipedia, unless it's in a reliable source. It just says you can't publish the address on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the #1 site on the net for a lot of searches and putting the information on Wikipedia greatly increases its public profile, even if it's already published somewhere else.

There really isn't any more of a WP:PRIVACY issue here than there is for...

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to ignore policy. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIVACY is about the privacy of people who are the subjects of an srticle, not about people who happen to live at a location where an event took place which is itself the subject of an article. The logical extension of your support for removal of any part of the address from this particular article is that any article about either any building where anyone lives or works, or any event, cannot have its address given. Ghughesarch (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

You could not be more wrong, Ghughesarch, BLP is about every living person on the planet, otherwise we would gaily mention the names of non notable children of notable ppl cos BLP only covers the notable ppl not their unnotable children, pure nonsenseof course and not the way we work at all♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Er, no it isn't: in a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted.--ukexpat (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

BLPPRIVACY is actually very clear that it is about living persons not merely the subject of articles. You could try changing the policy but I wouldnt count on success in doing so as to make BLP only valid for notable people would essentially invalidate the policy and show a contempt for anyone who isnt notable, its just a non-starter♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. People live here, for example Highpoint I, and here 85-91 Genesta Road, so the addresses shouldn't be given in those articles? I'm not using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, by the way, you say articles must not include addresses.Ghughesarch (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum much?--ukexpat (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Not really, no. According to User:Squeakbox, the BLPPRIVACY policy is that addresses where people live should not be published. End of, as far as I can see. And yet Wikipedia publishes addresses all over its articles. As for OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, The Amityville Horror is by far the closest parallel to what went on (supposedly) at Enfield, in terms of the date, the interest it received at the time and subsequently (and it's worth reading OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to be clear that it cuts both ways - it isn't always a valid argument to be used in dismissing similarities between one article and another), but that was dismissed, since although that article does include the address, we are (apparently) dealing with something else here, in WP terms. We aren't. But as for the suggestion that the street name (half a mile long, 350+ addresses on it, so surely suffiently anonymised?) should be included, there seems to be no agreement - can we agree on allowing at least that? Ghughesarch (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

"This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." So this isn't a discussion that should be here at all. It's simply not a BLP issue that someone (apparently) happens to have moved into the house where the notable events are said to have occured, 35 years afterwards. Ghughesarch (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't even know where to start. The first sentence, uncited, is about a psychiatrist. The rest of the article is about her son, who murdered someone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Now it's just the first (unsourced) sentence. Will see if I can find any sources for the actual subject. Abecedare (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Abecedare ... that editor is creating messes all over creation, so that it's hard to keep up and deal with all of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

While I can verify that the current details in the article are indeed correct, I didn't find anything that would allow us to write a biographical article on the subject. The only available independent sources seem to be related to her son, or this relatively minor controversy. So I am prodding the article for now, and will take it to AFD if that is opposed w/o better sources being found. Abecedare (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Almost everything User:Xyn1 has written has been prodded or AFD'd (hitting my medical watchlist). He says on his talk he will create Utsav Sharma, so you might want to watchlist it. Thanks for the help; he's taking lots of editor time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The allegation by SandyGeorgia that her son murdered somebody is completely incorrect. He merely injured two seperate people across a many years of gap.If you check out the coverage this incident has recived "Utsav+Sharma"| here, you wll come to the conclusion that it meets notability guidlines. Also, as I previously mentioned, she is willing to take flack for her son. On a related note, I think this heavy bombardment of traditional wikipedia policies wont work for articles based in poor or developing countries. Even a minor goof-up matters (which gets only mention, but turns viral in the net). Associations, especially professional ones usually don't like the limelight. The news sources haven't developed that much. Thus, every tiny detail matters. Xyn1 (talk) 02:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Xyn1, you say "wikipedia policies wont work" (sic). If you are correct, then the solution is to change the policies, not to violate them, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

@Xyn1: I'd highly recommend that you (a) become familiar with wikipedia's notability and BLP policies, and (b) slow down your pace of editing so that you are creating fewer pages that others have to clean up/put up for deletion. Your editing is verging on disruptive and if you continue exhibiting such a cavalier attitude towards BLP articles, you are heading to a block. Abecedare (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been now through some of Xyn1's other articles (they're popping up right and left on the Medicine deletion list), and it appears that he is on a tangent about the poor quality of mental healthcare in India. Right as he may be (and there are plenty of sources that back that up), that is not good reason to create articles that don't meet notability, BLP vios, and POV articles. He's been quite busy, and I hope he will slow down before he needs to be slowed down. Xyn1, learning Wikipedia policies and writing articles in accordance with them will be a more effective use of your time, and ours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

First, remember the 5th pillar. Second, remember the media in underdeveloped countries is not up to the mark to meet wikipedia's high standards (which are successful in the anglo-sphere where institutions are strong). I still feel you should continue to maintain such high standards in the anglo-sphere related articles. But, since, the coverage of wikipedia's anglo-sphere articles have reached saturation point, we need to be more lenient when it comes to articles emanating from the non-anglo-sphere. Third, you should also ask yourselves why the number of wikipedia admins have gone down over the last 5 year. (source) Is it because of applying hostile policies to non-anglo-sphere topics/articles? Is it because of excessive weeding and not enough gardening, as is the case in some sciences: (http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/180/3/280.full source)? Lets face it, it's perhaps both, the hostility must be reduced and the 5th pillar honored (by way of respecting milder powered sources, in terms of non-anglo-sphere-topics). Perhaps its due to the former, that that the number of admins -- usually from anglo-sphere -- are going down, in relation to the number of articles emerging from non-anglo-sphere sources. This is where the problem begins. As one of the user said: [...]Thanks for the help; he's taking lots of editor time.[...]. Well, you see, Mr. Editor, your workload could have actually gone down over the years, by attracting new editors via providing a more collegial atmosphere to noobs and semi-noobs. You see, the thing is, you are addicted to inserting {{some-warning-in-a-template}} and running away. Rather than clearly stating what more is required from the article writer for it to be suitable for Wikipedia and the best way of achieving (i.e. google). The latter is more meaningful in both, creating new articles as well as attracting more new regular editors. It seems to me that the admins are merely a hive mind. Essentially, having a list of attitudes which are considered politically correct (and vice-versa)in their own little realm. This may also be a generational gap. You see, the older cohort who used to be active are gradually thinning in their ranks, the newer generation of editors, who are, from their ousted, more inclined to make sporadic edits, some of them conforming to guidelines, but most of them, being, greeted by warning templates in excruciatingly technical language from Mr. Editor. Clearly, Mr. Editor ostensibly has good intentions, but, the unintended side effect of his knee jerk reaction is that, for one, the sporadic editor is not attracted (or reduce the frequency) to edit Wikipedia anymore. The second resulting unintended side effect is even further thinning of ranks in the top. The third unintended consequence is of the increased workload of Mr. Editor. The forth resulting unintended consequence, from the former, is the increased urge to place padlock on an even greater number of articles as well as preventing noobs from creating new articles, thus reducing breath of wikipedia. The latter two consequences completely runs counter to one of the main objective of this website. .... I hope sanity prevails. Xyn1 (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Some sanity is always nice. Xyn1, it looks like you've got a lot of good energy. You've only got a few hundred edits so far, and I hope you have many more. BUT, the fifth pillar does not say what I think you think it says. Regarding Wikipedia policies and guidelines: "their content and interpretation can evolve over time". It doesn't say that they can evolve one way for one person, and another way for another person. Right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

And I've now been through Xyn's talk page history, and see this has been going on for years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know I'm a shitty person. Xyn1 (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

As I note here Xyn has also been liberally misrepresenting sources. This is a big waste of wikipedia editors' time and resources and detrimental to the readers. Abecedare (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Indira Sharma should be listed at AfD, and hopefully deleted; there's no substantial references, just very much 'passing mentions; no good sources about this individual. <I'd list it myself but I can't, as an IP> 88.104.18.246 (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Jawed Khan (Urdu: جاويد خان) (born October 18, 1967) is an Investment Banker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawedkhan (talk • contribs) 22:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a notice board to bring to the attention of a wider group of editors potential issues in articles relating to living people that are not currently being appropriately addressed. Do you have such an issue or are you in the wrong place? If you have such an issue, you will need to provide more details such as a link to the article and a description of what the problems are. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, a least he's not a merchant banker. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Given the editor's signature, the editor is also reminded of Wikipedia's policies concerning autobiography here. Dwpaul ^Talk 13:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments are needed with regard to reports that Johnny Depp and Amber Heard are dating each other. Neither of them have publicly confirmed that they are. Therefore, I and others maintain that this information should not be included in these actors' Wikipedia articles. However, the information is occasionally added and then reverted/removed. And hours ago, an editor commented on both of these Wikipedia talk pages that we should report this dating matter because WP:Reliable sources have reported it; see here at Talk:Amber Heard#Johnny Depp. Flyer22 (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. They are dating. It has been confirmed by reliable sources. Time to put this nonsense to bed, and move on... - thewolfchild 03:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

By the lack of commentary here on this matter, I take it that everyone is okay with Thewolfchild's additions to both of these articles? Flyer22 (talk) 04:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

From what I can see the sources posted at Talk:Amber Heard look borderline. The highest quality sources (People, Hollywood Reporter) do not mention them dating as a plain unqualified fact and the sources that do mention it as plain fact are low quality and/or only mention it in passing. The lower quality sources are not consistent with each other regarding details either, claiming it's been ongoing or on and off, some claiming it's been "confirmed" or "announced" when apparently they have done neither. Combine that with them apparently actively refusing to discuss or confirm it, rendering it at least somewhat contentious, and it all just looks really borderline. I personally wouldn't add it based on this sourcing, but rather wait for high quality sources to state it as plain fact. Put it this way, if it is added right now, what exact verifiable wording would we add, and which exact sources verify that wording without being contradicted by other sources? Siawase (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I have recently stumbled across the article Taus v. Loftus and am quite concerned by what seem to me to be BLP violations. However it is clear to me that this quite a complex issue, and so I would very much value additional opinions in case I am simply over reacting.

Ostensibly this is an article about a law case, but it contains quite extensive discussions about the personal lives of two individuals, Elizabeth Loftus and Nicole Taus. It is built around seven sources, four of which were written by Loftus, and one of which was written by Carol Tavris, described elsewhere as a personal friend of Loftus [47]. A sixth source is primary, a report of the court case. The final source deals only with historical background.

It seems to me that this selection of sources cannot possibly give a NPOV of what is clearly a highly contentious issue. At several places personal opinions of Loftus are presented as facts (and there seems to me to be quite a lot of SYNTH as well). A (fairly cursory) search for other sources suggest that most sources support the Lofus/Tavris point of view, but that simply reflects the fact that most of these sources were written, either directly or indirectly, by Loftus, Loftus's publisher, or Tavris.

I have added a brief discussion on the talk page and a number of warning tags to the aricle as an interim measure, but I would very much appreciate thoughts on a more constructive and effective way of dealing with this. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks to GregJackP Boomer! who has done a brilliant job sorting this out. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Zack Kahn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Zack Kahn wiki page makes many unsourced, unverified claims and is written in a self-promotional style that does not seem to meet wikipedia's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddyboy3013 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Correct on all accounts. You also forgot to mention the formatting sucks too. I'll take look.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

When we have sources stating that a person's parent is/was an inmate, does that content deserve the same prominence as a parent's occupation would otherwise get. See Cliff Alexander.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Above where it says See Cliff Alexander I should said See Cliff Alexander where the content once read "As of 28 November 2011^[update], Terry was incarcerated. Alexander picked up basketball late due to the lack of available safe courts to play on in his Chicago West Side neighborhood known as the Brian Piccolo community." before the first of these two sentences was removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say exclude the term inmate or, in this particular case, exclude tangential information regarding incarceration. An occupation is generally neutral, whereas inmate has clear negative connotations. Parents are not the subject of the article. Bahooka (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Except where it is relevant to the subject of the article as it arguably is to Cliff Alexander. When the subject is an athlete that is the child of another athlete, as Alexander is, then it is natural to question what sort of career the parent had. Incarceration that cuts the parent's career short is not WP:UNDUE. On the other hand, the subject of this article is a minor child so the incarceration of their parent is less likely to be useful information. On the gripping hand, reliable sources specifically mention the effect that this, and other environmental actors, had on the development of the subject's athletic skills. On balance, I think one passing mention doesn't violate BLP, but that's just me. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

At the moment I've removed the sentence as lacking WP:RS. The WP:BURDEN for keeping it is on the editor who wants it in the article. Overall, though, the material about the father's personal circumstances is tangential to the WP:TOPIC of the article. – S. Rich (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)22:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The RS is there. It supports "As of 28 November 2011^[update], Terry was incarcerated. Alexander picked up basketball late due to the lack of available safe courts to play on in his Chicago West Side neighborhood known as the Brian Piccolo community," but you have removed the first of these two sentences. I.E., it supports two sentences and immediately followed them before you removed the content. Would you like the citation repeated after each sentence. P.S. "Wants it in the article" is a bit off. It is not like I am trying to shackle him with the burden of an unsavory parent. I am just trying to summarize the sources. As the biographer, I am still a bit confused on his father's status because as the article also states, he visited colleges with his parents. I am not sure if his biological father is the same as the man who is now giving him parental guidance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

FYI- This article is a current date request at T:TDYK, where the hope is to have it on the main page at the time he makes college choice public via his official verbal commitment on Friday November 15th on ESPN.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:00, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if this should be resolved before or after the press conference.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, note that the original placement was in the personal section at the bottom of the article. It is also common to describe parents and other ancestors at the beginning of a biography. I sort of feel describing his father as an inmate at the bottom was a compromise between putting it at the top and not including it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Allen Leech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I added information about this person, but someone removed the content a while ago as "insignificant" and "vague gossip". Should the info be added again? --George Ho (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The column cited (indirectly) in The Mirror is a gossip column rather than hard news, and stated only: "Allen, who previously dated Love/ Hate actress Ruth Bradley, was also keeping tight-lipped about his love life." So it is highly questionable to claim it as a reliable source concerning a relationship with Ms. Bradley. Information that he dated an unidentified Scottish makeup artist for a year is vague and insignificant and quite tabloid-ey. The article gets along quite well without this poorly sourced and unencylopedic information. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Generally, if you have questions about information you might contribute to (or remove from) an article, encourage you to use the article's Talk page to discuss with other editors of that article. The editor who removed this content probably should have offered a more detailed explanation in Talk but did not. You could discuss its reintroduction, perhaps with different sources, with them there. But I agree with their decision to remove given only the existing sources. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Michael Carter-Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

He was a 19-year-old Freshman in college. He was held back at least once or started school late. That is the only way to explain why he graduated high school in 2011 instead of 2010. He only played 2 seasons of College Basketball from 2011-2013[48] - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.66.161 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 11 November 2013‎ (UTC)

Are you pointing out some issue with the article here on Wikipedia? I don't understand the relevance of your comment to that article, which doesn't mention the subject's year of graduation from high school and doesn't claim he played more than two seasons of college basketball. An explanation for the subject's age at graduation from high school or as a college freshman isn't relevant to an article about a one-time college and now professional athlete. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The biography of the living person Xia Yeliang is constantly being updated to include unsubsantiated and libelous information about Xia Yeliang's teaching. There are no publicly available reports on this teaching and some person(s) continue to put it on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.130.242.94 (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The ip is correct in that unsourced commentary critical to the subject is being added. Please add thus your your watchlistsTwo kinds of pork (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes the press sees things before we do.[49] It seems a week ago a new account made a single edit to insert content in the mayor's BLP criticizing the city's policies and procedures. [50] Comments? Suggestions?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose having some of that there, since it seems it has received coverage. But the original insertion is a bunch of OR, primary sources, opinion and undue weight. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:27, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

OK I've cut it down. See what you (User:FreeRangeFrog) think. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

@Keithbob: Much, much better. Good job. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The article Tyler Deric is probably a cut-and-paste from his mlssoccer.com biography. Kindly review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actricalian (talk • contribs) 17:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've reverted that addition.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

With this edit my edits to redact controversial, defamatory, unreferenced biographical information per BLP have been reverted. I would like to know by what justification these can be restored? Elizium23 (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

For anyone who doesn't know, prior to her marriage to Gene Scott, Melissa Pastore worked in the adult-movie industry under the name "Barbie Bridges". My talk page edit, ironically enough, was to support the removal of said information from the article if it was poorly sourced. Elizium23 has long claimed ownership of that talk page (have a look at it). This editor has attempted to remove any mention of even the word "pornography" on said page, thus ensuring that no discussion of contentious material can even begin to take place. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge the assertion above is based on a single Marie Claire article that was rejected as a reliable source by Wikipedians' consensus several years ago. — Brianhe (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That's why it isn't in the article, and I support it not being in the article. Elizium23 has attempted to stifle any discussion of reliable sources on the talk page. I'll note that I have also restored a rather extensive discussion about reliable sources, shamefully removed from the same talk page as a "BLP violation". Joefromrandb (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If the article was reviewed by the community and discarded that would seem to settle the question. Could you provide the link to the discussion? Otherwise, a single source may be used as a reliable source.JodyB _talk 01:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Melissa Scott (pastor)#Edits by Active Banana, discussion on removing Marie Claire source has been closed without further comment since August 2012. I believe Marie Claire may also have been part of the poor sourcing involved in the decision to delete the article in 2007, but the article history has been deleted so I can not confirm. — Brianhe (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

As I've said in the past, sources such as the Marie Claire piece and Anorak (a link which is used as a source for the Suze Randall article) along with a perusal through the pubic records of the respective states, the ex-porn star assertion are 100% verifiable. The problem there is that it strays into original research and synthesis problems, which make it somewhat unsuitable for article inclusion at this time. There's no valid reason for outright redaction of talk pages comments, however; what's out there for sourcing is sufficient enough so that it's at least a valid topic to discuss. Tarc (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Tarc, for summing up exactly what I was trying to say, in a manner far more eloquent than I was able. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Anorak is nothing more than a repeat of selections from the Marie Claire piece. There is no corroboration anyone has put forward for what was asserted in that one piece. — Brianhe (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• John Dalli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone please have a look at this article, which has been the subject of an edit war in recent weeks. There are numerous issues with the article, which reads more like a "fan piece" than a balanced encyclopaedic article, and I have made a start on identifying these. However, I am most concerned about potentially libellous statements made about third parties (individuals, organisations or companies). Many of these statements are uncited (they may possibly be true, but should certainly be supported by reliable sources if that is the case). The sections from "The Revision of the Tobacco Directive" onwards are particularly alarming. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Her article has a section called "Political Views". The sources in it are all from 2008 when she was running for senate office, and most or all of the views attributed to her in the section came through spokespeople. (Even a few which look, in the article, like direct quotes.)

I deleted the section, but my edit was undone. Steve.Murgaski (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you doubt her spokesperson had license to state her views?Two kinds of pork (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the statements of her spokespeople in 2008 can reasonably be taken as her "political views" for all time. More problematically, the article attributes some things to Kennedy as direct quotes, when the sources say that they came from her campaign team. Caroline Kennedy#Political Views (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Steve.Murgaski (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The section has been taken out. Thanks for your time. Steve.Murgaski (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Shaygan Kheradpir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Aged 103? I don't think so — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.81.229 (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism I expect. There is no date of birth given in the source cited, so I have removed it entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: In short: an editor believes an article cited in Jonathan Hart is speculative and should either be labelled speculative or removed entirely. I believe the article presents factual information. I need someone to help read over the article and entry. --Rawlangs (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Last year, it was reported in Times Higher Education that the subject, Jonathan Hart, had held two full time academic positions on opposite sides of the Atlantic and that he no longer works for one of the universities. This information is reflected in the wikipedia entry. The THE article contains the word "apparent", and an IP editor feels strongly that this word colours the entirety of the article's contents. The IP has consistently removed the content or labelled it "apparent" or "speculative" to diminish its weight. I have consistently reverted him. After an exchange at User talk:174.1.110.26, I requested page protection, and it was granted. The IP then complained to the protecting admin, which you can find at User talk: Mark Arsten. I would like to get ahead of this if I can, since this dispute has resulted in accusations of personal bias against me. I would welcome any suggestions people have regarding BLP edits to Jonathan Hart. --Rawlangs (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Additional eyes on Alva, Oklahoma‎ would be helpful. An IP is repeatedly replacing the city's website with an inappropriate link that creates BLP concerns. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Not an IP, but a new account. I've blocked it. MastCell ^Talk 00:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

There is some type of virus in the link located in the External Link section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.255.80 (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed in this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harriette_Walters&diff=664389169&oldid=550340363 Govindaharihari (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)