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

David Campos

Spate of edits by a single purpose account, apparent violations of WP:NPOV. I've already requested page protection, and am coming here following a suggestion at my talk page. Thanks, 76.248.145.181 (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Just me... or does the name of the editor in question here seem like it's likely intended to be profane to anyone else? Kevin (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The users name is sexual slang, it might warrant a username block. I left the user a note User talk:Browneyehairpie#BLPN - David Campos about this thread. Protection has been refused at the WP:RFPP request on the grounds that if this user adds the content again they will be blocked. - Off2riorob (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Gajendra Thakur

1. It is self-published. 2. No other author contribute in this. 3. This is not useful for general public. 4. It has been created for self-publicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshat38 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

1. It is not Self published

2.It is not true that no other author contributed in this. 3.This is useful for general public, and if it is not useful for general public then it is applicable for the whole wikipedia. 4.It has not been created for self-publicity (!!), as the references are in abundance to substantiate the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umeshberma (talk • contribs) 08:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that Akshat38 is unaware of the wikipedia policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umeshberma (talk • contribs) 08:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that Akshat38 is unaware of the wikipedia policies. He failed to point out any libelous thing in the article/ any violations in the guidelines of living person biography. He has also unnecessarily edited (not edited but deleted) "Modern Maithili Literature 1830 to date" under Maithili language section, it clearly shows his lack of knowledge of current Maithili Literature scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umeshberma (talk • contribs) 08:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Akshat38 is here at wikipedia for deletion and offensive racist deletions, as his deletions clearly aimed at denigrating have-nots of society or is aimed at the authors who speak for that strata of society--Umeshberma (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC).Umeshberma (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Remember to Assume Good Faith in editor's actions. I am surprised that a notable scholar and author cannot be found in any source unconnected to him - has his work ever been reviewed, cited or mentioned by others? If not, then he doesn't meet WP notability standards. Martinlc (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

- There is a degree of connection here - User:Umeshberma on his account at commons says "I am Assistant Editor of Videha - the subject of the article Gajendra Thakur is - He is editor of Videha - imo the article needs at least moving of any uncited claims to the talkpage. The picture that is being claimed copyright for is also a cut and copy from the website - see here. http://www.videha.co.in/new_page_27.htm - Off2riorob (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Akshat38 has also first inserted and then deleted some flag from my edit, the edit work requires hours but the deletion requires only a mouseclick, editors to look at the vandalism of Akshat38.Manojberma77 (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Martinlc, I have added two more references. Off2riorob if you look at Maithili Language then almost all authors you will find having articles is 81 issues of Videha http://www.videha.co.in/ Manojberma77 (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Martinlc- I have added references "unconnected to him". Many "unconnected" references are in text/ journals that are not online, however two-three references that was online has been added under references column, some external links has been deleted, therefore. RegardsManojberma77 (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)"Unconnected Sources-Mithilakshara: He was pioneer in standardization of Mithilakshar script. The Unicode encoding applicant has acknowledged his contribution as "Gajendra Thakur of New Delhi graciously met with me and corresponded at length about Maithili, offered valuable specimens of Maithili manuscripts, printed books, and other records, and provided feedback regarding requirements for the encoding of Maithili in the UCS." (ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 N3765; L2/09-329; 2009-09-30Towards an Encoding for the Maithili Script in ISO/IEC 10646; Anshuman Pandey; University of Michigan; Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.; 30 September 2009); and has included in references "Thakur, Gajendra. 2009. “Videha”, a fortnightly Maithili e-journal. http://www.videha.co.in/."

Second Unconnected source: He has also translated from Maithili into English.(Muse India www.museindia.com author index)

3rd unconnected source: He is member of Maithili Lekhak Sangh (the organisation of authors of Maithili)(www.maithililekhaksangh.com authors page: selected works)Manojberma77 (talk) 05:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC) link http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n3765.pdf Manojberma77 (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)link http://www.museindia.com/viewarticle.asp?myr=2008&issid=22&id=1286 Manojberma77 (talk) 07:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)link http://www.museindia.com/authprofile.asp?id=784 Manojberma77 (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)link http://www.maithililekhaksangh.com/2010/07/blog-post_3709.html Manojberma77 (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)link http://www-personal.umich.edu/~pandey/

I remain of the view that a genuinely notable author would be mentioned by academic literature sources, or in book reviews in recognised publications. The evidence so far presented is insufficient to show more than that he has written some books and has achieved a minimal level of recognition as a result. If he had won an award it might help. It should not be the case that wikipedia is the most comprehensive source of information about an article subject.Martinlc (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

1.Dear Martinlc, it is not only that he has written only some books, now I am providing you a link for yourself to see the effort and labour he has put in transcribing 11000 palm leaf inscriptions, here is the link of original manuscripts- you can see the manuscripts for yourself: http://www.esnips.com/web/videha here download the folders PANJI_PACHHBARI_ORDER_UTEDH.zip / Dooshana_Pnji.zip / PANICHOBHE_BIRPUR.zip /PANJI_DIRECTORY_ChotiJha_Shakha_Pustak.zip / PANJI_LAST.zip / PART_1_PANJI_COVERLESS_4_Patra_Panji.zip /Part_1_PANJI_WITHOUT_COVER_5_Mool_Panji_5.zip. Although it covers only part of (say 1/4th) of the total jpg images, the all 11000 jpg images are included with the DVD that is given alongwith his book "Panji Prabandh." These manuscripts very old (the oldest say more than 500 years old), are written on palm leaves, and were in a dilapidated condition. These were digituized and were transliterated from MithilakShara to Devanagari script , the book is also available online at http://www.box.net/shared/yx4b9r4kab The information provides details of geneology of Maithil Brahmins, and besides has a great source of information on the history of kings, writers, poets, hitherto considered as mythical. Moreover it provides a 100 table of evidence of intercaste marriage between brahmins and dalits.. and many more categorized information, that has been provided at the 100 page introduction tho these 900 page transliteration.

2.The mention of secondary sources- it has been inserted in article, some more will be inserted in due course, the ones included is- University of Michigan; Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.;30 September 2009;ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 N3765; L2/09-329; 2009-09-30 ,Pandey, Anshuman, (2009)/Subhash Chandra Yadava/ Premshankar Singh/ Muse India / Anuchintan, Govind Jha, Navarambh, Patna 2010] etc.

3.Braille and Maithili: He is pioneer so far introduction of Braille in Maithili is concerned, so far only one to have introduced braille in Maithili.

4.English Maithili Computer Dictionary, His book has been pioneer in localisation of Maithili so far as localisation of Maithili in computer terminology is concerned, GerardM has e-mailed me regarding this, that I am localising for Maithili Language (for wiki) but the credit goes to this dictionary solely.(this book is online also https://1690698639185724599-a-shruti--publication-com-s-sites.googlegroups.com/a/shruti-publication.com/shruti-publication/Home/EnglishMaithiliDictionary_Vol.I_GajendraThakur.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7coBeM0L9okASS_Jy9GYhl_kthZHpt_TH4-BbR3rnWOKzsRv2318oRP8iA4uxnYcnmcngIe0WT46x0M8WwMxDsq4Ti-senzYE0wiJdPWx-Y40oRUNFtMMoM4Qk-QkHk0HLGvHJl0ouUD2zuKibhHHhtbOQhhFOgl2Qj0KB1T4pibZOHf1dU59X4JLkqg68HuV6ecYaHm02oCIKN9BvZ74xBRwyPGRop69c8e5l3cMMcEyBWzs7yGunG4e5pUCeiWrIc3FhBym7QQVlBdZ4HNUoT6SFUeEw%3D%3D&attredirects=0) --Umeshberma (talk) 06:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, one thing regarding notability came just to my mind,the link http://www.esnips.com/web/videha which i have mentioned above contains two files 1. Saubhagya_Mithila_Videha_1.flv and Saubhagya_Mithila_Videha_1.flv, this is coverage of Gajendra Thakur on "Saubhagya Mithila" the only TV channel of Maithili. --Umeshberma (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

For an author, we would expect some direct third party mention of his works. It is not clear who has published his books, or that they have been recognised a important by others.

ok adding these details, however at least 79 maithili authors have appreciated his books/ works (already added at reference 6 currently), and at least 19 third party references already added. Please look these and then comment, do not post tentative comments, also add four tildes so that I and other know who are you. --Umeshberma (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Third party references that the article now include: The Dictionaries and "KurukShetram Antarmanak" has preface by Prof. Udaya Narayan Singh, the then Director of Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore, and a linguist of repute, current at Vishwa Bharati, Shanti niketan (established by Asia's ist Nobel Laureate Ravindranath Tagore); Vidyanath Jha "Vidit", Coordinator of Maithili at Sahitya Akademi, Delhi, (India's National Academy of Letters), Govind Jha(himself a compiler of Maithili English Dictionary), Meghan Prasad, Satyanand Pathak, Ranjit Singh, Laxman Jha Sagar,Premshankar Singh, Anshuman Pandey and others; and by journals such as Muse India(English) and many Maithili journals (such as Purvottar Maithil, Purvottar Maithil Samaj, Mithila Darshan etc.) and the papers at Seminar organised by Central Institute of Indian Languages (CIIL) and Sahitya Akademi. Regards..--Umeshberma (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Martinlc, I have added the references from various sources, I am also localising Maithili Language in Wiki and have just completed 500 most used messages last night. You will soon find representation of Maithili in institutions. However I am sure that the volumes of manuscripts that Gajendra Thakur has deciphered and transliterated, this kind of work if made in English, would make the person Head of the Department of Geneologists/ ethnology at US and European Universities. However having said this, as most of his work is in digitized form and available online it won't be difficult to assess the works, assess the devotion/labor to save one's literary history and cultural references; even with little source of references the works are here for the world to be assessed independently also. Regards..--Umeshberma (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Judy Mikovits

This article states that "Mikovits has garnered criticism from scientists for stating that XMRV "undoubtedly causes some of the symptoms that are associated with" CFS" and cites three references in support (references 13, 14 and 15). However, none of these references support the assertion that Mikovits stated she had proved a causal relation between XMRV and M.E./CFS: the link to the first reference is ineffective, and the second and third references contain clear statements to the effect that Mikovits has not asserted a causal link between XMRV and M.E./CFS, rather she has stated the opposite (that is, no causal relation proven). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike-mickeyd (talk • contribs) 20:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I note this article was here recently about some dispute regarding including some academic person worked in a bar.. The article was merged in 2010 after a discussion to Whittemore Peterson Institute - User:Keepcalmandcarryon undid the redirect 16 April 2011 and wrote the current article that includes this content that is disputed here mostly himself, I notified user kcaco. Off2riorob (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. The quote given in the article is, well, a quote. Mikovits stated explicitly that XMRV causes some of the symptoms associated with CFS. (As a side note, the organisation where Mikovits works has also encouraged CFS patients to take antiretroviral drugs to treat XMRV infection. One doesn't treat something unless one is convinced it plays a role in disease.) If Mikovits has made contradictory statements, it's probably worth noting that as well. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this topic is out of my field completely, but when I had a quick look last week I remember getting the impression that she had got some results she thought show possible connections but that more investigation was needed - that was I understood from looking at a few of the externals not that she had stated without doubt that this was a fact. As I say, this was my uneducated assessment of the somewhat complex content in the externals. Off2riorob (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There have indeed been contradictory statements, sometimes within the same interview. For example, take the New York Times source, in which Mikovits is described as saying she had not yet proven but only indicated causation. In the next paragraph says she "thought the virus would turn out to be the cause, not just of chronic fatigue, but of other illnesses as well." Mikovits then takes another step, saying her results establish "what had always been considered a psychiatric disease as an infectious disease". In the Hamilton Spectator source, Mikovits also makes a clear causation statement. All in all, the language could perhaps be improved and the article expanded, but I don't think anything in there currently, however poorly written by me, is inaccurate. Mikovits has certainly stated in some places and implied in others that XMRV is the or a cause of symptoms of CFS and other disorders, and this has drawn criticism from scientists. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Valley Regional High School

As most of Valley Regional High School is about people, a federal investigation, etc., I'd appreciate someone else casting an eye over it. Dougweller (talk) 08:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a bloated local drama, the large section could be trimmed to a few lines, head teacher appointed and rejected in record time for unexplained reason and new head appointed. The second section is also unduly reported - someone is appealing his sons two week expulsion. All of its cited to a a very local publication. And collected and published from that local source and distributed to the whole world using the mouthpiece of wikipedia. There are 36 external links to http://valleynewsnow.com - Community News from Chester, Deep River and Essex - perhaps there is someone at that local publication posting here. - Anyways, it needs a good edit to remove the bloat imo. Off2riorob (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Jessica Lunsford

This got on my watch-list because I performed a requested move for it. Today a new user tried twice to remove two lines; I reverted, but looking at the article, I am unhappy both about those two lines (the second para under "Abduction, rape and murder") and the whole section "Joshua Lunsford sexual offense case". Neither Mark nor Joshua Lunsford would be notable but for Jessica's murder, and it seems to me a BLP violation to use the murder article as a WP:COATRACK for allegations about them, even though sourced, which are not relevant to the subject of the article. I suggest both sections should be removed. Views? JohnCD (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Removed.--Scott Mac 18:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Stephanie Booth

As User:Trident13 has returned to editing the article I have unarchived this report for discussion and resolving. Off2riorob (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Would editors look at the content and sourcing of Stephanie Booth, a biography of "a British millionaire transsexual business woman and hotellier"? There may be BLP issues; most of the article is cited to transformation.co.uk (example), which may not be reliable. Cunard (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As a reliable source without looking at the article it doesn't look like one to me and as these results for project usage show it is only in use at this one BLP article then clearly it would be a good idea to get clarification at the reliable source noticeboard, my opinion by looking at it is no BLP should be using this as its primary external reference source. I asked for comments at the WP:RSN here. After a quick look at the article it seems pretty well written and balanced although I do think the uncited and contested claims need to be either cited or removad to the talkpage.Off2riorob (talk) 10:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not properly sourced, and could use some removal of parts. The source appears to be on the order of an SPS in this case. Collect (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I also left a note on the talkpage of the main creator of the article - User talk:Trident13#BLPN - Stephanie Booth so we should wait for some input from them.... Off2riorob (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for reviewing this article. Cunard (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Audrey Tomason

Sheesh, speculative and basically unsourced article (see talk page). She showed up in the situation room picture (way at the back of the room) taken during the Bin Laden operation and people wondered who she was, but this article is useless. AfD? 69.111.194.167 (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yup. AfD seems sensible. I've axed the obvious trivia, and the possibly-libellous speculation, but this needs watching. Not by me though - I should have gone to bed hours ago. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, how surprising is it that people would like to have information? Obviously its not verified and hence says appears but people can decide for themselves. What is wrong with "obvious trivia" about someone that people are obviously interested in? Should we delete random information about other individuals on their wikipedia page?

Also, regarding Khaled speculation that was mentioned in several news articles so let the newspaper worry about libel, as long as it is sourced (although I do not think it was soured to the article that makes that assertion, just to the original file). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seekmiddleeasttruth (talk • contribs) 05:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a supposedly reliable encyclopedia and as such, we don't do speculation here, at least for stuff like this. There are other places on the internet that are suitable for speculation. Not here.
The sources cited in the article are pretty crappy, and do a lousy job backing up the stuff being asserted. It looks like the whole article came from some self-feeding internet rumor mill. This isn't good. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No, not really good but ... it also looks like wiki is in the loop of this story and assisted in the rumor circle, see from the Daily Mail article -

Who is Audrey Tomason? The mystery of the woman in the situation room photo.....She is now so famous she has her own Wikipedia page ... Her Wikipedia entry describes her as:... Audrey F. Tomason is the current Director for Counterterrorism in the Executive Office of the Preside.......

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383959/Who-Audrey-Tomason-The-mystery-woman-situation-room-photo.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

and this blog is one of the primary rumor/story breakers and an account is on the talkpage claiming to be the blog owner and appears to be dissing one of the claims (suspected to be...) User:Tbanderson . I removed that claim ..The blog was added to the BLP (not by Tbanderson) but I removed it as blogspot not a RS. Off2riorob (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

http://thusbloggedanderson.blogspot.com/2011/05/audrey-tomason-woman-who-kept-al-masri.html

- User:Seekmiddleeasttruth is the new account that has been adding all the controversial weakly cited claims. Contributions/Seekmiddleeasttruth - as you know - truth is not something we deal in here - Off2riorob (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

note - we need to keep an eye on this BLP - twelve thousand page views yesterday.http://stats.grok.se/en/201105/Audrey%20Tomason - Off2riorob (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I still support deletion. The Daily Mail article is basically rumors, and the rest of the citations are primary sources that may be misleading. For example, the article mentions she introduced Noam Chomsky giving a lecture. That makes her sound like she was a leftwing political activist, at least at that time. But all it really says is that she was involved in some kind of poli-sci seminar where there was a series of speakers (of whatever persuasion) and she introduced one of them. There is just not enough public info to write an article that neutrally represents reality. And we're not an intelligence agency, so it's not part of our function to tease out scanty information from below the noise floor. IMO the only reason anyone is interested in this person is that she's in a more visually attention-getting demographic than the older, all male (except for Hillary Clinton) other participants of the meeting in the picture. 67.119.15.96 (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like my address has changed—69.111.194.167 was me. 67.119.15.96 (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability for inclusion is set very low at en wikipedia - and AFD discussions are weakly considered by actual wikipedia policy and guidelines - its broken really - a couple of interested users and a couple of ip comments and its almost impossible to get rid of such rubbish. Keep this is really important - do you think you would get a consensus - I doubt it. Keep - she is really important notable about Bin ladens death - she was in the picture . For what its worth I have opened a notability discussion on the article talkpage, see and please comment at Talk:Audrey Tomason - Off2riorob (talk)

Yah, that was my blog post that apparently somebody googled & decided to crib for a Wikipedia article. (Do you ever suspect journalists of creating Wikipedia articles and then citing them in their stories?) I continue to think it's a good guess, but that's all it is -- suited to a blog post, not to Wikipedia ... But re: deleting the article, seems premature. (1) There is at least some public interest in who Tomason is. (2) The fact that she's a relatively prominent woman in the U.S. counterterror bureaucracy -- not noted for its female leadership -- to where she's the only woman in the Situation Room who's not Hillary Clinton, *does* make her notable. Kind of a two-edged sword: you can say she's only notable b/c of her gender, but sometimes gender itself is newsworthy ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbanderson (talk • contribs) 13:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to sign. --Tbanderson (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

just fontaine

Dear Sir/Madam, First of all I would like to state that Wikipedia is a wonderful gift to the world. Thank you for the energy you have put in so far. I am not a geniuous when it comes to computers and other electronics, to say the least. Therefore I prefer to send you an e-mail with my complaint. It is about the article of Just Fontaine, the great footballer. In the English text for Just Fontaine there is a mistake. It says that his father is Moroccan, but that is not true. His father is from Normandie (France). He might have been born in Morocco when it was ruled by France. Morocco was French territory at that time. Just Fontaine's father is French and his mother is of Spanish decent. Just Fontaine has parents with different roots, but Just Fontaine is French. Please change the nationality of Just Fontaine's father from Moroccan to French. Source: http://fr.fifa.com/classicfootball/players/player=29875/index.html Text from source: Originaire de Marrakech au Maroc, né d'un père normand et d'une mère espagnole, Fontaine a effectué ses débuts professionnels à l'US marocaine de Casablanca, de 1950 à 1953, avant de rejoindre l'OGC Nice où il inscrit 44 buts en trois saisons. Thank you. Kind Regards, Feyenoord010 Feyenoord010 (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, running the fifa citation in french you presented through google translate, see here translate I am getting Originally from Marrakesh in Morocco, born of a father Norman and a Spanish mother - so either his father is called Norman or was a Norman - as it seems disputable and from fifa - I removed the disputed from the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's where Google is misleading. The text says his father was from Normandy, not a Norman or called Norman. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Anil Kumar (businessman)

Hello, Anil Kumar's Wikipedia biographical entry describes a mentoring relationship with Dominic Barton. This is false, and seems posted in an effort to defame Mr. Barton given Mr. Kumar's recent legal troubles. While appearing to be sourced to a set of videos from The Popped Kernel, there is no mention of any such relationship in the videos and I request that the following language be removed to reflect that.

He mentored a number of senior McKinsey consultants, including current chief executive Dominic Barton when Barton moved to Asia.[8]

^ Klein, David. “A Conversation with Dominic Barton of McKinsey & Company” (video interview). The Popped Kernel. February 6, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbrown762 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed the sentence pending discussion with an editor who constantly has introduced disputed material into this and related articles. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. My mistake -- when I wrote this I was dealing with so many sources (over 40) that I must have just mixed them up. I'll have to go back and look, though won't have much time for this -- another editor is welcome to try. Of course feel free to take it down until we can source it properly.

On that note, I am appalled at three implications: 1) that this is "defamation": just because someone's in legal trouble doesn't make it "defamation," nor is connecting two people "defamation." 2) that this is "false": Even without the source it makes sense: Barton was 5 years younger than Kumar, was a pioneer in McKinsey Asia after Kumar, etc. From everything I've learned about McKinsey, this feels like it hangs together. But of course, not going to include it without source. 3) That I've "constantly introduced disputed material": I've done more for this group of articles than anyone, and put hours into them (this is clear from their histories). I'm happy to comment, chat, learn from others, and take down stuff. But it's really disappointing (and, in fact, this has scared me off from editing more) when there's an implication of untoward behavior when we are all just trying our best to learn and be thorough. Thanks! My2011 (talk)

Mayor of Himarë

User:Alexikoua is trying to add that the new mayor of Himarë is an ethnic Greek by using as a source an article written by a Greek newspaper. Goro, the new mayor wrote an article some days ago in an Albanian newspaper [1] and rejected any such portrayals. More specific he wrote that the former mayor Bollano (who considered himself an ethnic Greek) has an identity crisis and that he's not like him in any way (quote:E ndiej si detyrim që të sqaroj se unë nuk kam asnjë lidhje me mendësinë Bollano dhe nuk jam në krizë identiteti si ai.). Goro has made it clear that he considers such portrayals offensive and I ask for intervention. Alexikoua has been for a long time editing many Albanian people bio articles and many times his edits focus on disputing their ethnicity. However, this is is not a case of a dead person but that of someone who is a notable politician that is very persistent about his identity.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I have read his interview, but in the above url he does not contradict the fact that he is an ethnic Greek living in Albania, he just disagrees with his opponent's views and that's reasonable as part of his election campaign. In general 'identity crisis' in political speeches doesn't mean 'national' or 'ethnic identity', while the specific municipality is predominantly Greek populated. On the other hand reliable material such as widely known newspapers (like To Vima) are the best source we can use.

According to the disruption accusations I believe that this is just part of Zjarri's aggresive national background.Alexikoua (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Alexikoua he wrote an article specifically about the issue of his identity, so please read it and stick to what he's saying. He's been very persistent about that issue, so please respect his will and don't create BLP violation issues.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue you raised (that he isn't Greek), is in fact irrelevant with accusations against his political opponent (the link you gave). Please read carefully wp:blp, while the reference I used fullfils all criteria (v, npov, nor).Alexikoua (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Goro has a very specific opinion about that issue(which the use of the word antikombetar emphasizes) and if he ever changes his opinion and decides that he wants to adopt a new identity only then we should change that.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems that you need to provide precise arguments on the issue (unfortunattely 'antikombetar' means nothing here). Considering that you have not yet provided the slightest evidence to contradict the issue about his ethnic background, I assume that's part of the national campaign you lead (not to mention unbased accusations against me).Alexikoua (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The verdict is on the article he wrote, so please stick to his views.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is completely irrelevant. Please this is not a forum to promote unexplained national agendas.Alexikoua (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

A person's views are completely irrelevant regarding his own identity? My answer to that and every other comment is please read his article. Not to mention that just one week ago all of the Greek media presented him as the Albanian nationalist, who was working for the Albanian police in 2003 against the ethnic Greeks and now that he won some are even falsifying media files.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you are still making wp:or in this case (still need to provide a single argument). In general highly prestigious newspapers (even if they are Greek) meet perfecfly all criteria, something that usually editors of aggresive national background reject.Alexikoua (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Terry Plumeri

Hi Folks,

I am a former music student of Terry Plumeri (also known as Johnterryl Plumeri).

Recently, his wikipedia page has been completely eviscerated, leaving only the most basic information. Before that, there has been much contention around his page, presumably for some folks having some sort of personal dispute with him.

The bottom line, for me, is that he is one of the more important musical figures alive today; a ground-breaking double bass virtuoso, important modern composer, and accomplished conductor.

How can we get an appropriate wikipedia entry in place for this person? There seems to be so some residual controversy of a personal nature that is spilling into this site's representation of a fairly important musician.

Please advise me. I have no financial connection with Terry Plumeri; I am simply aware of his musical contributions and am shocked to see his article essentially stripped down.

Best, John Eric Swanson (e-mail redacted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jes101360 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It was "eviscerated" because most of the content was a copyright violation of material at http://www.terryplumeri.com/page.php?sec=10. Wikipedia cannot accept material that violates the copyright of others. – ukexpat (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

A large amount of material in the article was removed as a copyright violation - we cannot host copyrighted materials on Wikipedia without ensuring that the proper permissions and licenses are in place. The article can be rebuilt by any willing editor as long as the content is not a copyright violation, and the information is reliably sourced and presented in a neutral fashion. The article appears to have be edited regularly by Plumeri himself and was very promotional in nature; stubbing it down in order to allow a complete rebuild would likely have been the best option in order to ensure it meets Wikipedia policy even if it had not been a copyvio. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 14:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to add new material that's properly sourced, but not just cut and pasted from another website. In fact, it'd be great if you'd do so. --Dweller (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Vic Mignogna

I am seriously concerned about the birthdate issue on this article. A good-faith IP editor from Alabama appears to repeatedly add the subject's birthdate. Per the WP:BLP policy, I removed it as unsourced and speculative, but it was unfortunately swiftly reverted by the IP. (see [2], [3]). One of the relevant discussions can be found here. The birthdate i question come from IMDB, which is not a reliable source by all means. Can someone please look into this and voice their opinions on this matter? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless s/he's prepared to provide a source, s/he shouldn't be edit warring over it. I'll leave a note on his talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Brigitte Gabriel

A new user purporting to work for Ms Gabriel has been removing chunks of this article on the grounds that they are "slanderous" and (as described in an e-mail to me) "not written or authorized" by the subject. Those edits have been reverted (twice by me and once by an IP) and the usual COI advice given. I have also referred the user here. – ukexpat (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Now being joined by User:Cocomac7, also warned and advised. – ukexpat (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I was going to protect the article in order to ensure the editors blanking the sourced content brought their issues to the talk page, but Dweller beat me to it. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Page semi-protected and I'll happily block anyone gaming the system, because I'm reluctant to fully protect it while some experienced editors are doing a good job of improving some of the issues in the article. NB I've still not been kidnapped or bribed, but I live in hope of the latter. --Dweller (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Nick Finck

Fall afoul of Using the subject as a self-published source, as well as generally failing the NPOV, quoting at great length from subjects own on web descriptions of himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.40.162 (talk • contribs) May 10, 2011

On top of these issues, the quotes of the subject from his websites are a serious copyright violation. Also, can you please provide differences for the dispute? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Depuffed and removed commercial links. Collect (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ogi Ogas

[Ogi Ogas and his co-author] "claim to be actively affiliated with an academic institution that asked them to stop making such claims."

My alma mater Boston University never made such a request. For such a claim, the citation should provide some kind of proof or documentation that Boston University issued any form of reprimand. There is no such documentation, because this never happened. I still maintain my Boston University web page (http://cns.bu.edu/~ogiogas/) and my Boston University email address remains valid (<e-mail redacted>), though I now rely on an alumni email address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.63.109.116 (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

- It appears User:David Eppstein - has removed the claim, it was not supported by a WP:RS. The offending content was added May 7, in this diff by User:Tournesol01 - I left him a note that Live Journal is not a WP:RS to support any content. Please let us know if there are any continuing issues, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

bobby Gonzalez

This has come to a standstill. Are any corrections going to be done? Lindag3333 (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

- BLP noticeboard report from one month ago Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive114#bobby_gonzalez - Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I am seriously starting to wonder if whoever it is that is responsible for this god awful content has some sort of bias. Why is it I can get no responses and no action on this. How would you like it if it were you that someone did this to? No excuse for this kind of laxity since you're playing games with people's lives. Lindag3333 (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are my notes on previous discussions:

BLPN#109 claims of bias; nothing actionable
BLPN#111 large amount of text copied from article talk with some changes; unclear
BLPN#111(2) nothing actionable
BLPN#112 claims of errors; nothing actionable
BLPN#114 suggestion to use a URL which is now at http://jadendaly.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-not-bobby.html as source; Demiurge1000 explained about blog being unsuitable
Talk:Bobby Gonzalez#BLP Issues unclear
User talk:Lindag3333 large amounts of text from March and earlier; unclear
User:Demiurge1000/Bobby Gonzalez sources initial notes by Demiurge1000

Lindag3333: While the volunteers here would like to help, we need clear statements about what you think should happen. That is, what text should be removed (and briefly why), and what text should be added (and briefly why). Such statements should be on one page, namely a new section at Talk:Bobby Gonzalez. It is best if you do not speculate about awful content and bias—focusing on what needs to happen is the most helpful approach.

I see that a large amount of text has recently been removed from the article, and it is possible that the issue is resolved for now. I agree that the slant in much of the removed text was blog-like in its approach, and unsuitable for an encyclopedic article. However, it is possible that another editor would want to restore some information about the firing incident. If that happens, the text should be edited to a brief, neutral and encyclopedic description, and any facts must be supported with reliable secondary sources. If any future issues arise, please add a new section to the article talk page and describe what you think should occur to the text in the article. Do not make another report here unless there is no response within 24 hours of posting a message at the article talk page (however, make another report here immediately if unsourced negative material, or other nonsense, is added to the article). Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Moses Ademola

Career statistics appear to be wildly inaccurate. Inclusion of personal information about family in section relating to his career.

I have removed the personal information and restored the original birthdate (based on his online profile). The stats will need to be double checked by an editor with more statbox savvy than myself I'm afraid. For reference, his soccerbase link is here. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Engelbert Humperdinck (singer) biography

Time and time again, Engelberts biography shows that his parents are "Anglo-Indian", this is absolutely not true. His parents are British, his mother Olive was of Irish decent. Both British born. Engelbert was born in India, of British parents, so he is NOT Anglo-Indian, nor is any of his family--Msacker (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that confirms this, such as a book or newspaper article? As it is not sourced in the article I have removed mention of his parents nationality for now. I have also added the article to my watchlist to keep an eye on it. doomgaze (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Note I've removed the associated category as well pending verification. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Good one, I didn't spot that. As an interesting observation, one of the references to the article is from a book called Hostages To India: OR The Life Story of the Anglo Indian Race. doomgaze (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

James Van Praagh

I am amazed at how biased this biography is and how the skeptical part is so much more apparent than actual events which happened. One particular case would be Don and Sue Raskin, whose son came through with incredible evidence about falling on Mt. Fuji and told them they would receive proof afterwards that he was in a photograph at the mountain. You can view this on Unsolved Mysteries/James Van Praagh on You Tube. I do not mind a skeptical view as long as you also include the realistic experiences which occured beyond the skeptics doubt...it seems your article is extremely biased. Thank you, James Van Praagh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.117.113 (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

David J. Sosnowski

I question the notability of this individual. As far as I can tell from his article, he is an unknown, non-famous, amateur composer, who has never had his work publicly performed, produced, featured in a movie score, or in any way broadcast--which raises the question: why is there a Wikipedia article about him? The article itself lists no musical achievements, awards, or accolades, focusing instead on descriptions of Sosnowski's musical style, more like a resume than a biography.

Perhaps most egregious of all: there are no links at the end of the article--no references, no sources, no websites, no connections of any kind with the outside world: nothing to indicate that Mr. Sosnowski is famous or well-known. The only link that leads anywhere outside Wikipedia is within the body of the article itself, and points to Sosnowski's own website--which I believe is a double-violation of Wikipedia rules, self-advertisement and placing a non-internal link in the body of an article.

According to my understanding of Wikipedia's rules, this article should have been flagged for removal on day one--yet it has somehow stayed up for six years. Can anyone explain why? Chillowack (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Written over a period of over a couple of years by User:EtLux - It needs citing and improving thats for sure. Not sure if hes notable, limited note but perhaps enough for WP:GNG - I added a uncited BLP template. I you think he's not notable you could WP:PROD it and see what happens, it might attract someone informed willing to improve it and add a few citations. I left a note requesting input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers#David J. Sosnowski - note - after a bit more google-foo searching I have decided he is struggleing to get over our notibility hurdles and have WP:PRODDED him, happy to be proved wrong though. Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right, Off2riorob. I just "seconded" the PROD after failing to find any mention of him or his work in reliable independent sources. CDs and scores are self-published, and observe the note in the upper left hand side of his website. Below his one-sentence 'biography' we find: "See the Wikipedia article here for more on David Sosnowski." Voceditenore (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

An IP removed the PROD with this comment. Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David J. Sosnowski. – Voceditenore (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Richie Madisun

hi there. I have seen there is a feature on me and it has a tag saying it is to be deleted and would like to put on the record that this is a true description of me and the work I have done. I would very much like for this NOT to be deleted. Regards. Richie Madisun [redacted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.21.70 (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the PROD template as no reason was given for the nomination and it is obviously contested. Richie, for future reference anyone can remove a PROD tag if they disagree with the proposed deletion. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I've given the article a bit of a copyedit, but I have serious concerns about his notability. I'll post to a WikiProject and see what they think. --Dweller (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

bobby gonzalez2

I would like to know why nothing has been done regarding this. Edits are changed back fast enough, but once again, no corrections have been made and what is out there needs to be removed at once. You are going against all of your own policies. I'm only asking that you do what you are supposed to do. Lindag3333 (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

- This is seemingly unresolved complaint - previous recent also unresolved is here - I will request comment from the reverters. Off2riorob (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The information Lindag is removing is sourced to reliable sources. That is why I reverted it the first time. This time I did a selective revert, Lindag removed everything negative about Gonzalez, even that he had a losing record during a season. I restored the information about the different seasons but left out the extremely negative info about his conduct. It is reliably sourced but I believe that the amount of information is probably undue weight. There was also information about third parties that wasn't adequately connected to Gonzalez so I left that also. GB fan (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I have just noticed that this is the second report about this incident on this noticeboard. Please see my response with timestamp "02:14, 12 May 2011" above (permalink). I have added a '2' to the title of this section to distinguish it from the earlier report. The issue is probably resolved for now, but I left some suggestions for Lindag3333 at the link just given. Johnuniq (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

John Demjanjuk

John Demjanjuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) John Demjanjuk was convicted on charges related to genocide in the Holocaust some time today. At WP:ITNC it looks like this ig going to be posted on the mainpage. if some one could scrutinize it to assure there are no BLP violations it would be appreciated. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Cory Monteith

My citation needed tags are repeatedly being removed from the Cory Monteith article, even though there are no inline sources for claims made in the article. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much everything you tagged was already sourced in the first three references, so tag-bombing the article isn't a good idea. I did add one inline source for info about his family that I didn't quickly come up with, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Donald Trump

In the past few months, Trump has received a lot of national news coverage. Does BLP allow us to cover these events? To be as neutral as possible, I won't describe the specifics of the dispute. I believe a few experienced, nonpartisan editors could greatly improve the quality of article. --Tangledorange (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The answer is clearly yes, though I suspect you had a more specific question in mind than the one you asked. Gamaliel (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(Cross-listed at Talk:Donald Trump) This highly visible BLP article is an embarassment and a mess. A few partisan, SPA editors have edited away virtually all criticism of Donald Trump, sourced or sourceable. "The Donald" is one of the most fascinating, controversial, and best known Americans living today. His attacks on the POTUS are unprecedented, and have attracted extensive negative editorial commentary from around the world. This article needs immediate fixing by a large cohort of editors, or it needs to be started again from scratch after being listed for deletion. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think you'll get anywhere with an AFD. But I've added this article to my watchlist and I encourage other editors here to do so as well. You might want to draw up some statement of specific issues where you have conflicts with other editors and submit them to WP:RFC. Gamaliel (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Gamaliel, you are not convincing me. I am not taking this to RFC; that process takes too long. The article is a huge detriment to the Project. AfD will be done in seven days or less. The list of issues is very long, starting with:

Removal of sourced material documenting the confusion in the media over Trump's religion
Removal of sourced material documenting criticism of Trump's birtherism, homophobia, and race-baiting
Removal of sourced material documenting criticism of Trump's political stances
Removal of sourced material documenting Trump's past lack of political involvement
Removal of sourced material documenting Trump's past involvement in sports and WWE
Removal of all citations to critical cartoons
Removal of all references to questions about Trump's lawsuits
Re-wording of introductory statements, headers, and leads into misleading, milquetoast-like non-statements
Refusal to go along with establed consensus on reliable sources
Refusal to go along with establed style formats. Bearian (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

These are indeed serious issues. But I suspect the reaction at AFD will be the same that I have, namely that deleting an article about a high-profile public figure isn't the way to address those issues. In seven days or sooner, you will see what I mean. In the meantime I will monitor the article and encourage other editors to do so as well. Gamaliel (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If the deletion process fixes it, then so much the better. But at this moment, the Trump article omits so much, I feel like we should just throw up our hands and admit Wikipedia can't handle this subject yet. --Tangledorange (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually feeling better now, that this can be fixed by more people editing and/or watching the article. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This line of discussion is somewhat offensive. I don't think I have seen BLP used before to complain that an article does not trash it's subject enough. Arzel (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Saw article and found silly American mistake thinking that "Dutch Reformed" must be a Dutch church - in the US, they are Presbyterian in organization and theology. Teddy Roosevelt was "Dutch Reformed." Collect (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Martin Hosking

Resolved

– Article protected, editors warned. --Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There has been repeated and malicious posting of defamatory material on this biography. It relates to a supposed relationship between Martin Hosking and something called Hipster Hitler. There is no evidence of such a relationship, support or that the material in question is anti-Semitic. There is further question as to whether this biography is of sufficient importance to be on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corryong (talk • contribs) 07:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked through the edit history of the page, but I suspect that the edits are w/r/t this. It looks like Martin runs a website on which people may sell t-shirts of any design they choose, and the guy who runs Hipster Hitler - which is a webcomic that is not intended as anti-semitic - has a shop there. Given everything, I do not think that a mention of the fact that HH sells stuff on this website would be appropriate for the biography of the founder of the website. Kevin (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone has posted what appears to be something approaching a legal threat at Talk:Martin_Hosking. Although it is directed at those editing the biography instead of Wikipedia/Wikimedia itself, it is still troubling. Kevin (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the legal threat. The article is being attacked by several newly registered users. Administrative action is needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've posted at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

An anonymous editor just left a message about this on my talk page: User_talk:Kgorman-ucb#Martin_Hosking asking for reinclusion of the material. I see no valid reason to do so, and have responded to that effect. Kevin (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Gary Weiss

Resolved

– IPs blocked 72 hours. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Persistent, edit-warring IPs adding derogatory, unsourced information to this BLP despite talk page admonition. ScottyBerg (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Scotty, did you notify the other editor of this discussion? Cla68 (talk) 04:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Even if notice were required, which it is not, this editor is editing from a mobile device and is now on his third IP. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

IP User appears to be using a mobile device to make these edits, which were five in number and continued after warnings on user and article talk page. See my warning and diffs at talk page post at User talk:174.253.170.12. ScottyBerg (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Issue seems to have calmed down now and the IP made a talkpage comment which is a good sign. I also left then a menu of helpful links. It seems they were using WP:Original research to assume something, they appear to have understood the advice that its not correct within en wikipedia guidelines - so lets hope they take the time to read a few guidelines and contribute some more to the project. Off2riorob (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP's talk page post[4] was indicative of personal intent. It's not clear just yet if the edit warring to add unsourced negative speculation is over or that this editor has mended his ways. This edit [5] was unsourced and inaccurate, which does nto bode well. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved: IPs blocked 72 hrs by HJ Mitchell. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Van der Sar

In the second paragraph it says that Van der Sar was named best European goalie in 1995, 2008, 2009 and 2010. When clicking on the link "Best European Goalkeeper" in the same paragraph you will see that the list is showing Iker Casillas as winner in 2009 and 2010. When I go to the page of Casillas it says he won the price for best goalie in Europe in 2008 and 2010, rather inconsistent. On the Real Madrid website - http://www.realmadrid.com/cs/Satellite/en/1193041476158/1193041476328/jugador/Jugador/Casillas.htm - it says that Casillas won the award in 2008 and 2009. I was not able to find out who won the award in 2010. Kind regards. Feyenoord010 (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

List of living supercentenarians

A group of SPA's and IP editors, is wheel-warring on this page to add and re-add flags, despite requests not to do so. It's a long-running dispute on longevity pages but is most disruptive on those that feature living supercentenarians (age 110+). WP:FLAGBIO is crystal clear on this. Indeed, if you look at the talk page discussion for WP:FLAGBIO, this specific use of flags was rejected, and WP:FLAGBIO was tightened to make the intent clear.
Here's the language (I've bolded the considerations most germane to BLP-policy.):
Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth, residence, or death
Flag icons should never be used to indicate a person's place of birth, residence, or death, as flags imply citizenship and/or nationality. Many people born abroad due to traveling parents never become citizens of the countries in which they were born and do not claim such a nationality. For example, actor Bruce Willis was born on a U.S. military base in Germany, so putting a German flag in his infobox, for any reason, might lead the casual reader to assume he is or was a German citizen. Similarly, many people die on foreign soil due to war, vacation accidents, etc., and many people emigrate, without any effect on their actual citizenship or nationality.
Earlier on, I filed an edit-warring AN. It was closed because the closing admin concluded that there was no edit-warring; not enough reverts. In a discussion on his talk page, he told me he'd warned one of the IP's about calling me stupid in an edit summary, but that he wasn't sure WP:FLAGBIO was binding. He admonished me that I should not edit war over this. So I've left a request to revert on the most recent SPA's talk page, and asked for ideas about how to resolve this on the article's talk page. I think intervention by an admin would be helpful. David in DC (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The flags seem to have been removed by the account that added them so its a flag free zone at present. have you considered asking an administrator to add you an WP:edit notice, also if it continues, consider asking for some more semi protection. Off2riorob (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Harry Cook

An administrator has removed recent edits to this page which were carried out at the request of the subject's family. This was done apparently as he believes the edits violate the biographies of living persons policies. The administrator responsible is marked as being on vacation - can you help remove the family information urgently? Watchdog2011 (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Its been removed as I can see. Please don't add those claims again until we have better sources. This is supposed to be the local paper where these details have been reported and I can't find anything about it online yet http://www.hexhamcourant.co.uk/home - although a pointer that there is some recent news is that this article about Cook from 2008 is the most read article on the website this week. Off2riorob (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this explanation. The newspaper article can be viewed here: http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/launch.aspx?eid=7f02efca-78f8-4d43-9942-26458dda8e17&pnum=2 Can the item about the court appearance please now be reinstated as the offences do involve children and it is expected that other victims may come forward.Watchdog2011 (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say, if that is all that is available to support the desired addition, then - no. Also - whether or not other people are coming forward is irrelevant here, we don't report possible future yet to happen events. It would be better if this was reported in a national newspaper as wikipedia would not want to become the primary vehicle for such allegations that are as yet unproven - I myself have yet to even see them. Off2riorob (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Tom Corbett

A user is repeatedly removing edits/additions related to his energy policy. Sources are reliable and taken from his own energy policy and local newspapers. For some reason they are considering it activism and vandalism, however they haven't appeared to check the sources, are unaware of the problems and think they are natural disasters, which are actually man-made and related directly to the decisions Tom Corbett has made as a living person. The discussion of his energy policy and Marcellus Shale gas drilling is an extremely important and relevant topic related to the man as he was not only funded directly by the gas drilling industry, but is repealing policies and making laws directly related to drilling. He mentions Marcellus more than 20 times in his own energy policy and has repeatedly stated he wants their headquarters in Pennsyvlania, so I do not see how it is not relevant. No point of view was made and only unbiased facts stated from sources. The persons editing appear to be supporters of the man or do not understand the situation.

Any help is welcome. Discussion is at Talk:Tom Corbett#Energy_Policy— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.47.50 (talk • contribs)

Looking at the edits, it appears to be WP:SYNTHESIS. That is, you are using multiple sources (some of them primary) to draw a conclusion not actually reached by those sources (that he is contradicting himself). There would need to be reliable third-party sources that discuss this specifically, but even then it's not clear that this is notable enough for his biography. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Pretenders to the throne of a republic who don't actually pretend

There may be a developing situation at the following articles:

This may also spread to other articles, as I think I have detected BLP violations that may also be present elsewhere.

Otto von Habsburg / Otto Habsburg-Lothringen had to formally renounce the Austrian throne in 1961 so that he was allowed to enter the country. Yet until today our article claimed without any source that he was still a "pretender" for that throne. In the eyes of the Republic of Austria this would be grounds for expelling him. Presumably they would regard him as a traitor. A similar problem exists with his son Karl Habsburg-Lothringen, who lives in Austria and held an Austrian seat in the European Parliament. The claim that he is also a traitor, which would be implied by his "pretending" to the throne, is surprising and unsourced. Hans Adler 21:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ouch! Yes, seems like a clear BLP violation, at minimum. If it isn't sourced, chop it out, I'd say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh what drama! Archduke Karl of Austria is presented as Head of the House of Habsburg that's it. - dwc lr (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I admit that the problems in the case of Karl are a bit more complicated than those for Otto. The main problem at the moment is the huge box at the bottom of the article which claims him to be a "titular", but under the heading "titles in pretence". As I understand it, "titular" isn't quite as bad as "pretender", but is still problematic as it assumes that his renunciation of the throne is invalid. Hans Adler 21:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think a part of the problem is that "Pretender" is a technical term for those who study the history of royalty. As we say in our article Pretender, "A pretender is a claimant to an abolished throne or to a throne already occupied by somebody else. The term in itself is not pejorative. The original meaning of the English word pretend, from the French word prétendre, means "to put forward, to profess or claim"; this predates today's more common English meaning of "pretend", which is to claim falsely."

I have long thought that we should tend not to use the word in the "original meaning" because I think it can confuse readers quite badly. This is bad enough if we are talking about people long since dead, who never once in their life pretended (in the modern sense) to still be a monarch, but it can be a positively absurd BLP violation to say it about someone still living.

Even in those cases of currently living people like Constantine II of Greece, who - perhaps - still calls himself King and never officially abdicated - the term 'pretender' sounds unnecessarily pejorative.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Obviously I agree. It appears that when someone is called a pretender it often just means that in the alternate universe of the Gothas and Debrett'ses they do hold those titles. Of course this alternate universe interacts with the real universe in various complicated ways. Perhaps the most important of these is that for monarchies, to some extent it is the real universe, while for republics it is not. The situation is parallel to that of exile governments, anti-popes etc., except that in many cases these 'pretenders' only serve as poster boys for political endeavours which they do not (openly) support. We really need a nuanced and fair way of dealing with this. Hans Adler 11:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here. They are related but can easily be confused.
1. The possibly pejorative interpretation of the term "pretender". While the word originally meant exactly the same as "claimant", it now implies to most people "false claimant".
2. The extent to which an individual can be said to claim a throne (i.e. other than by saying "I claim the throne"). With the exception of King Leka of Albania (whom Wikipedia insists on calling Leka, Crown Prince of Albania in spite of contrary usage), there are few claimants who are so clear (Otto was clear for several decades before World War II). Others limit themselves to granting and recognising titles, giving orders of knighthood, styling themselves by some alternate title giving them family precedence, and exercising some authority (especially in marriages) over their family members - all of which is a claim to something. There are none other than Leka willing to use armed force; they generally see themselves as "representatives" of their reigning predecessors, ready to serve their countries when called upon (but the term "representative", while useful, is not commonly used). Their most ardent adherents, on the other hand, see these individuals as fully monarchs as their predecessors in spite of the fact that their territories are de facto ruled by republican governments.
And here, I think, is the most important point. Wikipedia should not present the view of current state governments as if they alone were "the real world". The Greek Royal Family is not recognised by the government of the "Hellenic Republic", but it is as much today as ever the royal family associated with the geographical entity of Greece. Just as there are some editors on Wikipedia who push a legitimist agenda, there are also editors who wish to rid the world of monarchy and think that Wikipedia is a means of doing so: by deleting articles on princes (e.g. the third most important person in a national monarchist movement), by using the word "pretender" (with all of its false implications), by adding the word "former" indicating that contemporaries do not believe this. If we're really going to be NPOV, then we have to allow for the monarchist/legitimist viewpoint - while at the same time not overstating it.
We do this reasonably well with religious articles. Not everybody (including not all Christians) believe that the pope is "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church". There are multiple people who claim to be bishop of a particular city (some of very small groups). The practice seems to be to present what the group says about itself (ignoring the fact that most people, if asked, might disagree). Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

On a BLP article, the question is not just what "the group" says, referring to some group that ascribes a special role to the person. It also matters what the person themselves says.

For the sake of the argument, let's suppose that the European Revolutionary Committee grants the title British Chief Guillotine Operator to Tony Benn. The title also appears in the Almanach de Paris, édition Thermidor 212 [= July/August 2004] (and later editions). The French government and the governments of a few other European republics that have had some trouble with royalists recently use these titles on official occasions. Nobody really knows how Tony Benn feels about this. After all, the Treason Felony Act 1848 is still in effect so he can't speak completely openly. Is his non-violent image just cover for his violent ambitions as an executioner? Is he just waiting for the chance to behead poor old Liz and her entire mishpokhe?

Nobody nows, but Wikipedia has clear naming guidelines for articles. Tony Benn appears under his highest title: British Chief Guillotine Operator Tony Benn. Hans Adler 19:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'm not going to comment on what we should do about people who don't actually claim the former throne that they might be entitled to. But let's be clear on one thing, pretender means claimant it does not mean "false claimant". This is not the "original meaning", this is THE meaning. Read any serious work of history and that is very clear. James Francis Edward Stuart and his son Bonnie Prince Charlie were pretenders to the British throne - and that is a statement of fact that says nothing about the legitimacy or otherwise of the claim. People who say otherwise and think "pretender" is POV are WRONG. We educate people who are factually wrong, we do it politely and patiently, but we don't pander to ignorance. If Wikipedia is a serious work of reference, it needs to use the language that serious works of reference use, and not dumb-down by avoiding all terms that someone might get wrong. We aim to educate. The problem with royal articles is that they are worked on by a mixture of serious historians and a bunch of fantasists who imagine that Jacobitism is still a political ideology - or that the Persian throne might be restored. I mean, seriously, our article on Jacobitism states "Jacobitism was the political movement in Britain dedicated to the restoration of the Stuart kings" and the same user who wanted "pretender" references removed from it as POV also edit warred to to have it read "Jacobitism is the political movement..." - on the basis that there's some websites by cruftists who call themselves Jacobites. I mean as if comparing historical figures who planned revolutions and were attained for treason, with some internet romanticists were a credible use of an encyclopaedia. There's a decision to be made here: are we a serious reference work, informed by the best academic standards, or are we the lowest common denominator of the internet's cruftists, obsessives and great uneducated masses. Let me know if it is the later, because I'm off.--Scott Mac 19:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Scott Mac is just plain wrong when he says that it does not mean "false claimant". This is not the "original meaning" Please read the entry in the Oxford English Dictionary: "1. A person who makes a profession or assertion, esp. falsely or hypocritically; a person who lays claim to an ability, quality, skill, etc., esp. without adequate grounds or with intent to deceive; a charlatan; a dissembler. ... 3. a. A person who claims or aspires to a title or position, esp. a claimant to a throne (often when considered to have no just title)".

The pejorative interpretation of the word is there from the very beginning; it is NOT "factually wrong". It was used against the Jacobites specifically to indicate that James Francis Edward Stuart was a false pretender. But Scott Mac goes further; he says that I and other Jacobites do not exist; we are mere "internet romanticists". This is EXACTLY what I was referring to above: editors who wish to maintain that monarchy/legitimism is something of the past and does not exist today. We may be a minority, but that is no reason for Wikipedia to claim that we don't exist. Equally, it is essential that Wikipedia not overstate those minority views so that readers might think that they are widely held. Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, read the Oxford dictionary you've just quoted again. It perfectly supports MY point. Pretender can mean false profession (definition 1). However, WHEN USED IN THE CONTEXT OF TITLES "title or position, esp. a claimant to a throne" (definition 3) it does not. I read a lot of history, and pretender is exclusively used in this objective fashion. When "Jacobite-myth fantacists" engage in any real political activity, then perhaps we can see them as a modern political movement. Until then they are up there with Vampire-wannabees, and have nothing to do with an encyclopedia recording real history.--Scott Mac 20:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I have deep respect for Scott Mac, and he and I almost always see eye-to-eye on BLP issues. But in this case, I do not agree with him. "Pretender" is used much too broadly in Wikipedia, indeed, wrongly in many cases, going beyond what I still think is a live issue of the term itself being misleading to general readers. (And I don't think "dumbing down" is the right way to view using terminology that is readily understood by readers, rather than confusing jargon from specialist works.)

But, as I say, even leaving aside that, Wikipedia goes much further than that. We describe all sorts of people as 'pretenders' who are not and who would not be considered as such by any serious historians. In particular, take a look at List of current pretenders. We have Elizabeth II listed as pretender to the crown of India. That's just wrong, patent nonsense. The Indian Independence Act 1947 was passed with the assent of King George VI, who subsequently through an order in council on 22 June 1948 removed the title Emporer of India from himself. Under no definition of the term 'pretender' used by anyone serious, is Elizabeth II a pretender to the throne of India. It's pure fiction and pure fantasy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This genealogy nonsense is so rife throughout the project no one one can take any of it seriously. Take the 12 yo princeling, in its deletion debate you gave a 'weak delete' based on the Greek royalty having been abolished, but the genealogy wonks can always find another path through to some extant royalty. Look at the Line of succession to the British throne, 2500 of them, at what point on that list does the notability of Royalty wither away? Family of Barack Obama: Elvis, QE2, Wild Bill Hickoc?

Genealogy also rears it head to label Muhammad Ali as English. Then there is its application to create the List of Jews in Sports, or List of former Roman Catholics, all of it complete nonsense as far as a reference that wants to be taken seriously is concerned. John lilburne (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne—I hardly think geneology is "nonsense", or those who pay attention to it "wonks". I don't think we would be permitted to make use of "raw" genealogical data as I think that would constitute original research. I think that whenever genealogy is a factor it would have to be supported by accompanying reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The above comes as no surprise. But if you were to show the Obama page to some random person in the street you'd be faced with incredulity and the comment "that's got to be joke". Show them Line of succession to the British throne and you'll get utter astonishment, List of former Roman Catholics the same, and your List of Jews in Sports is as incomprehensible as the British throne nonsense. I receive emails from all over the world from people inquiring about a photo of some place that is associated with an ancestor back in the 17th, 18th, and even the 14th century, so I understand that there is a personal interest in one's 'family'. My wife has details of her Jewish great, great, grandparents and wants to visit the village where they lived in Alsace-Lorraine in the 19th century. But that is very different from the nonsense of the lists here. Its said that Royalty is always notable but the 2523rd in line to the throne is hardly notable at all. Viscount Linley (who is hardly notable at all) was once 5th in line he's now 14th and less notable for being Royal than he was when he was born. Does royal notability get sucked out them? If a bunch get killed in plane crash does notability get blown back into the others? John lilburne (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne—you mention List of former Roman Catholics. How is that genealogical? It is a list of individuals who changed religion.

You refer to "your List of Jews in Sports". Could you please "comment on content, not on the contributor". I don't believe I have ever edited that article. Bus stop (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Figure of speeech, I recall you arguing for the list when it was here a couple of months back. As for the Catholics, a number on the list are there because they went to a Catholic school, or because there parents are/were Catholic, there is no evidence that they were adherents to the faith once they old enough to form their own opinions. They were Catholic by reason of birth alone which is the same rationale used for the labelling in these lists currently discussed here. John lilburne (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't participate in any of the WP:AFDs for Talk:List of Jews in sports, although I probably participated in similar AFDs.

In reference to the Roman Catholics found on List of former Roman Catholics you suggest some may not have been "adherents to the faith". If reliably sourced, could it not be mentioned that certain individuals were not "adherents to the faith"? Alternatively, they could be removed from the List. I think this would be best addressed on a case-by-case basis. Bus stop (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

How do you get a RS to prove a negative? An old guy I once knew was brought up a Catholic, was baptised a Catholic, was buried as a Catholic. He said he never believed a word of it, was Atheist all his adult life, only ever entered a church for christenings, weddings, and burials. Yet having been a Catholic in the late 1940s in Glasgow, he knew all about intolerance he used to talk about the factory and shipyards in Glasgow had signs that read "Vacancies - Catholics need not apply", and it didn't matter whether you were a actually a Catholic or not because it was all about where you lived and what your name was. It affected much of his activity throughout the rest of his life. The UK's 1976 Race Relation Act is partly due to his backroom organizing, but it wasn't the Catholic thing that was important it was experiencing the injustice of prejudice first hand. The labellers here would have him as Catholic, in private he despised all of it. Next example is my childhood friend who was Jewish, I sat next to him in the synagogue when he had his Bah Mitzvah, but he was never, to my knowledge either a religious or cultural Jew, we had sleepovers and he came on holiday with us a number of times, but religion was never a factor with him, and he did enjoy a bacon sarnie. OTOH he did support Spurs, we cheered as 11yo after the six day war and played Israelis vs Egyptians rather than Cowboys vs Indians for a few days afterwards, but Spurs having won the FA Cup was far more important. He lived in a complex of apartments where High Court Judges, people from radio and TV, Politicians, and company directors also lived, the apartments were divided into 'houses' each entrance had a foyer, and two concierges, the lifts were oak panelled and worked, everywhere smelt of new polish. The complex had its own private swimming pool, saunas, squash and tennis courts. It was pretty much like a 5 star hotel. He also went to private prep school, but he was also a latchkey kid, a single child, in a one parent household, and in 5 years I never met his father, or any other relation. If he had a WP article the genealogists here would have him as Jewish, but as a child it just wasn't any part of his life, being the next Jimmy Greaves or Ringo Starr was what he mostly thought about, that and his little Jack Russell terrier. The point being that simply labelling tells us nothing about a person, unless we have context. John lilburne (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne—a degree of significance is indicated by a reliable source's mention of an attribute of identity in relation to an individual. Other sources can cast doubt on this, but in the absence of such contradictory sources I think such material warrants inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

People publish stuff for a variety of reasons, and just because it is published does not mean that one should automatically include it here. In the two cases above whilst they had a background that was in part Catholic/Jewish it would be miss leading to describe either person as Catholic or Jewish. On some criteria one could describe my grandchildren as Jewish but in reality as far as their lives are concerned they are not. Such a categorisation would be entirely some one's POV, it would be as if I were to describe the Israeli or British Prime Minister as African. Which is exactly what these 'pretender' lists are doing, they have people on them that have no thoughts of one day waking up and being a Monarch, their inclusion on the lists are purely a result of the imaginings of others. The lists make no distinctions between those with aspirations to be head of state of some territory, and the fantasies of others. John lilburne (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned the meaning as false claimaint was never an issue here. Only Jimbo Wales and McFerran adressed it, and it obviously doesn't apply to any of the people under discussion. The problem that I wanted to address in this thread is only people who never explicitly claimed such a throne. Royalty fans tend to use the word in an inappropriate sense in which Robespierre, Karl Marx and Che Guevara might all have appeared in the Gotha as pretenders, and would not have had a chance to defend themselves against it. They could have said that they don't want the throne and if it was offered to them they would reject it. But as the example of Otto von Habsburg showed, the royalty fans would have simply ignored that and would have continued to call them pretenders. Or maybe not. Maybe the royalty fans know something about the sincerity or otherwise of Otto von Habsburg's declaration:

I, the undersigned, hereby declare in accordance with § 2 of the law of 3 April 1919, law gazette for the state of German Austria Nr 209, that I explicitly relinquish my membership in the House of Habsburg-Lothringen and all claims to power inferred from it and avow myself to be a faithful citizen of the republic. To witness this I have signed this declaration personally. Pöcking, 31 May 1961. Otto Habsburg-Lothringen.

But we, as Wikipedia, don't have sufficient information to portrait Otto von Habsburg as a traitor who was only waiting for a chance to grab the crown. Nor can we do that for his son. Hans Adler 20:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I know of no article on Wikipedia which says that Otto is a traitor. Hans Adler is himself coming to that conclusion based on other things which are or have been said on Wikipedia. The 1961 declaration is not the end of things. There are numerous later statements by Otto which seem to contradict it: e.g. Otto's November 30, 1990, declaration granting the title "Graf von Habsburg" (Count of Habsburg) to the children of a number of Austrian archdukes who had married morganatically. Then there are the numerous declarations recognising or not recognising certain marriages are dynastic. If Otto had indeed relinquished his membership in the House of Habsburg-Lothringen, then what can one make of these later statements where he exercises his authority as Head of that same house? The situation is complex, and difficult to summarize. I often find the "simple" versions presented in infoboxes to be inaccurate; a narrative explanation is often better. Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"If Otto had indeed relinquished his membership in the House of Habsburg-Lothringen". This is absurd. I have given you the precise text of the formal declaration with which he relinquished his membership, so that he was allowed to enter Austria. This is a Der Spiegel article from 1960 which describes the negotiations which led to the declarations. At the time Otto von Habsburg held an Austrian passport with the following notice: "gültig für alle Staaten der Erde mit Ausnahme Österreichs" – "valid for all states of the Earth with the exception of Austria". What matters for the Austrian state is whether he relinquished his membership in the house of Habsburg to the extent that it would give him a claim to an Austrian throne. Unless someone finds sources, we do not know whether (1) he 'crossed his fingers' while making the declaration, (2) he has somehow taken it back in the meantime, (3) he makes a distinction between membership in the House of Habsburg-Lothringen as a legal entity with relevance to Austrian politics, and membership in the House of Habsburg-Lothringen as a private construct that may or may not have some legal significance in other states, or (4) he isn't really sure what he is doing. (Personally I think something like 3 is most likely, perhaps mixed with 1 and 4.) Some of these speculations are compatible with his being a pretender, others are not. We can't say he is a pretender based only on such speculation. Hans Adler 09:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

See list of current pretenders for similar issues. To take the most obvious case, if Elizabeth II still claimed to be Queen and Empress of all of these states, I think we would know about it. Pfainuk talk 20:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

At least that list says clearly that it's not actually about pretenders but a closely related topic. What's also correct in that example is that QE2's theoretical claim appears in the list but not in her biography. It has nothing to do with her and is only relevant to royalty dreamers – for whom she cannot be held responsible. Hans Adler 20:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The list clearly presents its inclusion criteria in the lead. It includes claims regardless of whether they are made personally or by others on that person's behalf. But the sourcing issue is a relevant one, and since her claims (except for the Fijian one) were unsourced, I've moved them to a separate section. Nightw 08:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria for that list look messed up: "A pretender is an heir or claimant to a throne that either has been abolished or is presently occupied by another." Is there any dictionary definition of "pretender" that includes people who are not claimants (i.e. people who are merely heirs and nothing more)? My understanding of the word "pretender" is that it implies a claim to the throne. Here's what the American Heritage Dictonary says: "One who sets forth a claim, especially a claimant to a throne." Why does list of current pretenders make up a definition of the word "pretender" that's not in any dictionary? The criteria for that list also discuss "Claims made on a person's behalf", but who has to make such a claim on behalf of an heir? Can I make a claim like that? I've attempted to fix these problems, and the list is now titled, List of people claimed to have a right to a throne.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind carrying out a proper move request? That doesn't seem like a precise title and it's certainly not the one people will be looking for. Any changes to that title will also need to be made to List of current Indian pretenders. The lead in this list was revised recently; I've copied it over to the main list. Please take up any further issues on the article's talk page. Nightw 13:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the current title of the article (list of current pretenders), as long as the following sentence remains in the lead: "A pretender professes a claim under his own name, and the term is also applied to those persons on whose behalf a claim is advanced, regardless of whether that person himself makes the claim, as long as that person aspires to the throne." The last nine words are critical, and reliable sourcing needs to indicate aspiration to the throne. A person who is indifferent or rejects the throne cannot be a pretender; it would be a BLP violation to list such a person as a pretender.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The last two segments of that sentence totally contradict each other. Otto has (officially) renounced his aspirations, and so have a number of others. If you feel these entries do not fit under the definition of "pretender", then please do a move proposal. Don't change the inclusion criteria. However, the source we use provides for the definition of a pretender as including those whose claim is made by others. Nightw 05:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The lead sentence at list of current pretenders says: "A pretender is an aspirant or claimant to a throne that either has been abolished or is presently occupied by another." You seem to be arguing that a pretender can also be someone who neither claims nor aspires. That is not consistent with any English dictionary I've ever read. I suppose that a pretender could be someone who does not make a claim, but nevertheless aspires to the throne, while someone makes the claim on that person's behalf. I didn't write the lead sentence, but it seems accurate; a pretender must either claim or aspire. If I make a claim on someone else's behalf, then that person is not a pretender if that person has no royal ambitions.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The very sentence you're editing says "claims made on a person's behalf are included regardless of whether that person himself actually stakes an active claim" and you're adding to the end of that, "as long as that person aspires to the throne". That's a direct contradiction that is inherently confusing to readers. I understand what you're saying, but that's not a solution. Neither would replacing the first part of the sentence, since that would eliminate over half of the entries in the list. Perhaps a better idea would be to look at other lists composed by online almanachs and see as to what criteria they use. Please, let's take this discussion to the article's talk page. Nightw 07:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

(Undent)If someone is a descendant of a monarch, Wikipedia should never say that the person is a "claimant" to the throne, and should never say that the person is a "pretender" to the throne, unless a reliable source says that the person is actually seeking to get rid of the current monarch or seeking to restore the monarchy. Many descendants of monarchs are perfectly happy living average lives, with no aspirations for royalty (despite the recent mega-wedding in England).Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Lara Logan

I don't think the phrase

Matt Taibbi wrote a Rolling Stone blog entry titled "Lara Logan You Suck"...

should stay in a BLP. The title of Taibbi's opinion piece is irrelevant. Furthermore, as long as there is no independent secondary source referring to Taibbi's article, we cannot establish whether Taibbi's opinion is notable. Opinion pieces are not news reports. Cs32en Talk to me 23:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The opinion piece seems relevant to the paragraph, which is about criticism from fellow journalists. Taibbi has a Wikipedia article and seems notable. I'm inclined to think mentioning the title is gratuitous. Mindbunny (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Events reported in news articles are notable, because an independent source (i.e. independent from the event itself) mentions them. However, opinion pieces that are not reported on in news articles or similar sources are not notable, because no independent source (i.e. independent from the writer of the opinion piece) mentions them. Cs32en Talk to me 09:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly that is not noteworthy at all and is quite a personally attacking opinion piece as you can tell immediately by the title of the article. IMO the addition here was also designed to demean and attack logan - the user insisting on adding it to the BLP has been blocked 48 hours for BLP violations against Logan on the talkpage. see here contributions for User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous - I would say while he is out, get it out. I have already objected to its inclusion on the talkpage. I removed it, there is already the comment that other journalists have criticized and two actually focused reasons from two specific journalists which is plenty without the need for a third one especially when it is so attacking-ly opinionated. Off2riorob (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree, and thanks for removing the obvious attack. I am now watching the article, and have commented at WP:Requests for comment/Sandstein. Johnuniq (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this source should be removed, but it seems to have been restored. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the actions on that page have become conflicted in regard to Arab - Israeli and that the page should be added to that sector and any violations or edit warring etc be subject to that heightened level of conditional editing as detailed on the ((Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement)) arbitration notice. The disruption of that BLP has been unending over the last couple of months.Off2riorob (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thats nonsensical. Neither the article nor the source has anything to do with that topic area. nableezy - 18:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see why you wouldn't want this, as this section on your talkpage reveals previous Arab Israeli editing restrictions current on your account - User talk:Nableezy#Banned from editing Palestine-Israel pages for 2 months - Someone in the crowd shouted Jew which has been repeatedly offered as the reason for the attack and this was edit warring for the first month and finally its in the article, it happened in an Arab country and since the Jew shout is in the article there now appears an effort to demean her as a person and a journalist - Arab Israeli connection imo - this BLP has been disrupted for the last two months - its repeatedly been brought here and again its here, the disrupting of the BLP and its talkpage has to stop and the edit restrictions the template provides will help and if any of the involved editor there has issues and blocks in that sector previously then that can be considered when further violations occur. Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, do you have any idea what this is about? This is about statements Logan made close to a year ago about another reporter's piece on the then commander of US forces in Afghanistan. nableezy - 19:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This BLPN report is one in a longish line, the rise in interest and disruption on the article is all attracted via that Arab Jew issue, the assault. Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok? This source had been in the article since at least September 2010. To connect the two to each other would require a DeLorean equipped with a flux capacitor. nableezy - 20:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"Lara Logan You Suck" does not need to be in the article, but the actual source itself is fine. Currently, that source is used for an attributed opinion of Taibbi saying that Logan's remarks reflected what, in his view, was a problem among the establishment news media in that it acted as PR for its subjects, neglecting its duty to inform the public. Can somebody please tell me what the BLP vio in that sentence is? Off2's computerization of that piece is so off-base that it could only be made if the only thing somebody reads is the title of the article. This is published by Rolling Stone and written by a well known journalist, not exactly a self-published blog of some random fool on the internet. nableezy - 18:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that the source is fine for a BLP. It's a very strongly worded opinion piece in Rolling Stone, and the point we use it for in the article has been made by other sources in different ways anyway. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What in BLP says that strongly worded opinion pieces should not, or can not, be used in articles? nableezy - 19:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Some articles so strongly written as to result in attacking commentary. BLP says we should use the highest quality sources and write conservatively about living people - that would rule that opinionated editorial out. Off2riorob (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this argument strikes me as dead wrong. This is clearly a high-quality source. We're talking about Logan's professional reputation here, and that can only be addressed through opinion and commentary pieces, just as the critical reception/reputation of a book or film is often established via the commentary and opinion typically published as "reviews." Taibbi's online writing for Rolling Stone is an extension of his regular work for that magazine, for which Taibbi won a National Magazine Award, professional recognition comparable to the Pulitzer Prize. I would hope we don't retreat to the position that only blandly written, wishy-washy opinions are "reliable" enough to use in discussing such matters. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

He just looks like a strongly worded opinionated journo to me, not sure what you call them but the type that say as many controversial comments as possible to raise their profile. - not sure what hes an expert in. We are not looking for wishy washy but there is a big difference between qualified constructive critical comments and johnny is a crap this or that. - Its not a reflection of Tabbi overall just an editorial judgment on that article. Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Domestic responses to the 2011 Libyan civil war

Resolved

– addition is verified in multiple WP:RS reliable externals

That claim was added by 62.107.192.166 (talk · contribs) [6], then reverted [7].

The IP user complained that it was not vandalism [8] and undid the revert [9].

I came across it; I checked the source (which is the Al Jazeera blog [10]), and in my opinion, that was not an acceptable reference (WP:RS, WP:BLP) for such a claim, so I undid the edit [11], explaining it on the IP user talk page [12] and starting discussion on the article talk [13].

The IP user has again reinstated the edit [14] as RV: Certainly is WP:RS. Not just a random blog, but Al Jazeera. See talk for further.

Of course, I will not 'edit war' over this, but I am concerned about this BLP claim, and uncertain whether the source is appropriate.

See Talk:Domestic responses to the 2011 Libyan civil war#Saeed al-Aribi "quit his job".

Thanks, Chzz ► 04:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree - That source alone is pretty poor and they comment taking no responsibility for it themselves and they don't attribute any sources. But he does seem to have said this on Al Arabiya television that he was resigning and joining the rebels. on Thurs May 12. bloomberg - its been reported around a fair bit - reuters-africa - to quote from there for discussion purposes only - "In response to the souls and blood of the martyrs of the February 17 revolution, I, Faraj Saeed al-Aribi, the Libyan consul in Cairo, declare my resignation and my joining of the February 17 revolution," al-Aribi told the television channel. Off2riorob (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The source appears to meet the WP:RS criteria. It's a WP:NEWSORG and the same as a CNN live blog. I would like to know why it is considered not to be a RS, I notice no objective reason has yet been put forward. User:My76Strat seems to be under the mistaken belief that blogs are never a reliable source for BLP's. See Barack Obama a featured article for a BLP Barack_Obama#cite_ref-216 amoung others. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that.

I hope you will not mind, but merely in the interests of keeping discussion in one place, and for it being helpful in future if it is associated (clearly) with the article, I have copied the above two responses over to Talk:Domestic responses to the 2011 Libyan civil war#Saeed al-Aribi "quit his job".

If anyone has any objection to that, please feel free to revert my paste.

I suggest that further comments would be best on Talk:Domestic responses to the 2011 Libyan civil war - and I'd be very grateful if anyone else could add to the discussion, because currently it does seem unresolved. Cheers, Chzz ► 16:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you think is still unresolved - the detail you were removing is all over the web in multiple reliable sources. If you still dispute the wikipedia reliability status of the original source you can either change it for the two I presented above or if your focus is specific to the reliability of that external you should ask for opinions at the WP:RSN - as such I am marking this thread as resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, yes; I didn't quite follow the above. I've added another ref; fine. Thanks. Chzz ► 15:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Canadians

An editor has been edit warring in order to place Conrad Black under the Criminals section rather than Business where he has been listed up until now. I've gone past my own 3RRs so I'm reluctant to revert but this is a WP:BLP issue. Although Black is a convicted white collar criminal his notability is mainly in business and I think this list should reflect that. The editor Nuthos has reverted one last time listing Black as a criminal. So far, he has not discussed this on the talk page as requested. I've reported him for edit warring and requested the page be protected as well. freshacconci talktalk 22:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

On what basis do you claim that Black's notability is 'mainly in business'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph of his article.... freshacconci talktalk 22:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that Black's conviction is referred to in the second paragraph, that proves exactly nothing. In any case, Wikipedia does not cite itself. So can you provide evidence that Black is more notable as a 'businessman' than as a 'person convicted of business crimes'? Actually, there may be grounds for excluding him from the list on the basis that he renounced his Canadian citizenship, but that is another issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, since the other editor was the one who wants to make the change, the onus is on him to establish this--preferably on the article talk page. As for refs, the actual refs in the article that support the claims of Black being head of Hollinger, newspaper magnet, etc. would be sufficient, unless you're questioning those claims made in the first paragraph. As for first versus second paragraph, again, what is placed first shows what he is most known for. That's the whole point. Not that he isn't a convicted criminal but that his notability is first in other areas. Yes, it's very amusing to place him on a list of criminals, esp. since his name comes right after Paul Bernardo, but I think BLP does apply here. freshacconci talktalk 23:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to provide sources that state that Black is more notable as a businessman than as a criminal, or not? The structure of our article is of no relevance whatsoever to this. And no, he isn't being added to the list of criminals for amusement (at least, I assume not). He is being placed on the list because he is one. Or are you suggesting that being a 'businessman' somehow makes crimes less significant? Yes, WP:BLP policy applies here, as with any article discussing a living person. Can you say why you think WP:BLP is being violated? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

update - the article has been semi protected and Black has been moved back to the Buisness section. I fully support this position also - Black is primarily a notable businessman that was convicted of crimes - so he belongs in the business section, his crimes and punishment not being weighty enough to move him to the criminal section. Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Mordechai Vanunu

Eileen fleming (talk · contribs) is back, making contributions potentially in conflict with WP:COI, WP:RS and WP:BLP at Mordechai Vanunu. Despite having been warned before, she continues to incorporate information from real-world Eileen Fleming's blog. Most recent diffs: [15], [16]. (The second of the two has resulted in the article claiming two different dates as Vanunu's birth date.)—Biosketch (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the two edits you mentioned. However, the article still has many other cites to Fleming's blog, which I assume were introduced in November 2010 and earlier (there's a 6-month gap in her editing).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

sunil kumar

sunil kumar

date of birth 2nd december 1985

parents- Ram Tapasya Sharma & Meena Devi,

Brother- Sudhir Kumar

Sister- Sudha Kumari

Birth Place- Bokaro Steel City

Education-10th from BIV-2A,12th from BISSS-2C,

Graduation from BN College of Engineering, pusad in Electronics and Telecommunication

Post Graduation from ISM Dhanbad in Electronics and Communication Engineering.

First job- TCS, India —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.86.234 (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking if you should create an article for this person? If so, what makes him notable?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, the IP is now User:Sunil0212, and I'm guessing that the above information is his own information. Not sure if he wants to create an article about himself or maybe just add some of his personal information to his user page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Naman Y. Goyal

This Page has been craeted by shreesh.shrimali (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naman_Y._Goyal&action=history) - a Friend and Classmates hence is considered a Self Promotion Stint. For Instance shreesh.shrimali has no contributions to wikipedia except these.

naman is considered a self promoting fraud in film circles.

He is desperate for work and hence has created this wikipedia entry through his friend.

the references are Unreliable BLOGS and local city newspaper reportings in INDIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.203.0.81 (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The non-reliable sources have now been removed, and the article tagged for a total lack of reliable sources, and questionable notability. Please don't call living people "frauds" or describe them as being considered as such - that's not what this noticeboard is here for. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Infanta Leonor of Spain

I think the sourcing needs to be improved dramatically, and the unsourced material could legitimately be removed now, pending sourcing. At the same time, I don't have a problem with the material itself - these two are second and third in line to the Spanish crown and the information doesn't strike me as particularly problematic. (I could be convinced, but at first glance, it seems pretty routine public information.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Granted they are 2nd and 3rd in line, which probably means that there will be some mention of them here. But is born by caesarian section a notable event for a biography, or that stem cells were frozen? It seems to be trivia included for want of anything else to write, and gives us no biographical details about the person. Supposing we could obtain details of every person mentioned on the site would we put "[not] born naturally" and "stem cells [not] collected at birth" in all of them? Does the addition make for a better biography, or is it more inclined to make people astonished that such stuff should be recorded in a serious publication? John lilburne (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Problematic biography

This biography has a relatively large "Controversy" section for something that appears to be not very much an actual controversy, but rather the routine sort of dust-up that happens when there's a major policy change at a University. I don't know enough about the situation to be sure whether it should all be removed entirely, but I do know enough to say that on the face of it, it's much too long. I'll wait before making any edits to see what others think about removing the section entirely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes - its the cuts, the student union doesn't like them , no one likes cuts but its being unduly reported, soapboxed in that section. Mr Trainer is just the poor soul the has the task of implementing them. As regards total removal I am unsure, really the cut stuff would better sit in the cuts article (wherever that might be or in the King's College London article itself. As a start I have edited some of the undue weight out of the section and retitled the section. Off2riorob (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Buddhadeb Bhattacherjee

The biography contains lines like this: He is chiefly remembered today for his complete failure to govern the state [4], his failed attempt of industrialization in West Bengal, the forceful land acquisition dispute in Singur, the notorious mass-killing in Nandigram [5] and finally the Netai massacre. [6]

This is highly contentious and should be removed. The way it has been put is derogatory.

While the incidents took place during his tenure as the Chief Minister, the way of writing seems to be biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.1.71 (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I've re-written this sentence to be rather less WP:POV and to better reflect what the cited sources actually say. The sentence as previously written was a very recent addition; within the last few days. The rest of the article seems more balanced (or at least, it manages to combine strong praise with strong criticism). The article has been somewhat in the news recently, given the recent election outcome in the place concerned. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Vince Mendoza

You have misspelled Vince Mendoza’s name in your article on the Metropole Orchestra at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropole_Orchestra As a result, in your Metropole Orchestra piece, there is no hypertext reference to his biography at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Mendoza To make matters worse, in your biographical piece on Vince Mendoza, you have made no reference to his very active direction of the Metropole Orchestra. We love Wikipedia, use it every day, contribute to your fund drives, and recommend its use to everyone looking for the most outstanding reference tool in the world. Please bring this information to the attention of your editors. They are usually very astute, and they will see what must be done with this information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP/N

^{[details removed]} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.44.142 (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed the wikilink from Metropole Orchestra to Vince Mendoza. The article on Mendoza does seem somewhat limited, it's a pity that so few people are interested in improving it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Rob Burton

Resolved

– requested edit oversighted, disputed content removed - watchlisted

Hi. This is Mayor Rob Burton. I am concerned that you are allowing reckless and malicious false information to be posted on your web site about me. The material stays on the your web site in the history section. Here is the link to the diff that shows the objectionable material: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Burton&action=historysubmit&diff=425338690&oldid=401364995

In addition, I object to the addition to the page of selected links to selected news stories that are contentious and unresolved - if Wikipedia is to become a pin cushion of links to media stories, let it be to all, not just links selected to paint a negative and distorted picture. This diff shows you these objectionable links by an apparently spurious account called Hal Murabi: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Burton&diff=next&oldid=428701070

I also object to the vandalism of the page, where the link to my official site was changed to a comment board where, doubtless, offensive posts were to be viewed (but have since been scrubbed). Here is the diff showing the vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Burton&diff=next&oldid=425383225

I would prefer that no page exist. If one must exist, I would greatly appreciate it if it were not allowed to be used by political opponents to engage in attacks. That was not what I understood Wikipedia to be about. Can't you lock the page against this kind of harrassment? Sincerely, Rob Burton - comment added by 24.150.241.95 (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

note - this is the second report here from this IP (who appears to be the subject of the BLP and has left contact details) regarding this article - previous from April 2011 Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive115#False.2C abusive.2C defamatory vandalism - Off2riorob (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

- I am afraid that as an elected official you automatically qualify for a wikipedia article. I have asked for WP:Semi protection which if granted will stop new accounts from adding attack externals and suchlike content additions. I have also requested that edit is over-sighted (note this has been Done) WP:Oversight which if granted will remove it from the history . If you strongly object to en wikipedia hosting an article about you I suggest you email the foundation, see details here Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#How to complain to the Wikimedia Foundation - note - the request for semi protection has been refused by User:Philippe he says there is not enough vandalism, so when there is some more you can ask again - sorry. Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Darton High School

Resolved

– SPI removed one account - consensus on talk page

Continuing addition of contrasting negative and positive assessments of non-notables. Will request page protection if necessary. 64.222.237.179 (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Requesting article protection is at WP:RFPP - Seems like theres a talkpage consensus not to mention the manes , which I also support for the policy reasons there. I doubt protection will help or if it will be grated either and its more of a content dispute than vandalism. I added it to my watchlist, if I was you , just , watch revert and point them to discussion and if they don't discuss and keep re-adding it then report them to the editwarring noticeboard. WP:3RRNB - Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Little Fatty

I started an article on Little Fatty, an internet meme about a man from Shanghai who had his face photoshopped on several other famous faces/figures. The article identified him by name because, even though he originally did not start the meme and originally was upset by the presence of the meme. He made the choice to become a celebrity and a public figure, hired an agent, and even starred in a film. I made sure to explain this in the edit notice. I reviewed Star Wars Kid's decision not to use the name of that figure, and reasoned that Little Fatty's case is different because Qian Zhijun, the subject of the meme, freely interviewed about it and decided that he was going to become a public figure and celebrity.

Anyway, on Baidu Baike the man has his own article separate from the article about the internet meme. At what point would I make a separate article for Qian Zhijun himself (separate from "Little Fatty" the article on the internet meme)? Currently I'm presuming that Qian does not yet have enough independent notability. Would he become a public figure if he starred in a lead role of a movie or a television series? I would have to check Chinese news sources to see the latest about what is going on with Qian. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Just found out Qian starred in his second Chinese movie. I think he now has independent notability, but I want to keep gathering information until I make the split WhisperToMe (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Pooja Gaur

Resolved

– Subjects age is now supported and verified in an external video - the facebook issue is ongoing but under discussion on the talkpage - thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I came across the article Pooja Gaur　while patrolling recent changes. T284 (talk · contribs) insists on posting a link to her private Facebook profile ([17][18][19][20][21][22]) and I am worried that this is an invasion of her privacy. I am in danger of going over 3RR, so I can't edit the article myself; T284 has already gone over 3RR, but I didn't report them to the 3RR noticeboard because my warning came after their last edit. I am not sure if a ban would be appropriate in this case; my intention here is mainly just to open this one up to third-party input. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I should also mention that as well as the Facebook link, I am also in doubt of T284's editing of Pooja Gaur's age in the article. I don't consider this quite as important though, and we are discussing it at Talk:Pooja Gaur#Age. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I think T284 finally figured it out because he has reverted himself. The Facebook link is not "private", as far as I can tell. Whether it's authentic is another issue. It certainly doesn't belong in the lead, as Hullaballoo rightly pointed out in reverting. As for her age, I commented on the Talk page. She says on the video she is 19. Her say-so, unless it's contradicted by a reliable source, is good enough to include. Most sources get birth dates from the subjects. I don't think that many of them actually look at someone's birth certificate. True, she could be lying, but if she lied to a reliable source, and it was reported in the reliable source, we would include it. I don't see much of a difference. Reliable sources generally engage in fact-checking, but, generally, there'd be no reason to do so in this kind of thing. And, not that I'm a great judge of age, but, based on her looks, she could be 19 (you seem to disagree).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I see what you mean about the sources, and getting it from her is definitely better than the Google rumour mill. And about how old she looks, well, I've never claimed to be that great a judge... — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Keith Richards

Resolved

– vandalism reverted by cluebot

Check the name above photo please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.96.146.115 (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Usual vandalism reverted by the cluebot. Off2riorob (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Michelle Gellar

Resolved

– removed the uncited - feel free to cite and replace

The biography stated a reference about a "Christmas tree". How this connection was ever made, is another misconception. It would be more accurate if it would refer to an "ornamented cut evergreen tree." [Of course the tree was used in ancient times because it never "died" in the winter season, and becoming dormant.] If Gellar's family followed Jewish traditions and practices, the festival of Hanukkah is celebrated beginning on the 25th day of Kislev which is approximate to the winter solstice and lasting 8 days lighting a new candle of the Hanukkah menorah on each of the sucessive days. If the "tree" was used to indicate a Christian unholiday to replace the observance of the Jewish holiday of re-dedication of the Temple [John 10.22-23] as was the intent of Constantine then this would have indicated a departure of the family from their Jewish heritage. However having an ornamented evergreen tree AND an Hanukkah menorah would not be inconsistent as is the practice of many Jewish families in the United States. It might be more appropriate if you were to indicate that they had an ornamented cut evergreen tree in addition to a Hannukah menorah during the winter season, if such was the case. If not, I do not think that the conflicting religious significance should be indicated at all. Thank you for the opportunity to offer these facts for inclusion in your excellent biography. Please do not hesitate to request further clarification. I am not familiar with the practices of the Gellar family so I can only guess as what they may have been. There is much history concerning the Maccabbean revolt against the Greek's oppression and cruelty which resulted in re-sanctification and re-dedication of the defiled second Temple of Solomon. I just have not had the time to create a blog referencing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.86.29.117 (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

- Looking at it, the comment is unsupported in the citation - no mention of a Xmas tree? Off2riorob (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Both of her parents were Jewish, though Gellar's family had a Christmas tree during the holidays while she was growing up.http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/30619/celebrity-jews/

Luis González-Mestres

I'd like to call your attention to this biography. The person is notable, I think, but the bio is vanispam totally lacking in secondary sources. I've trimmed a little bit of the content but don't want to go too far, especially since I've been accused of being on the take and having an involvement with the Bogdanov Affair. For this and more, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superbradyon (2nd nomination) and a discussion on ANI, which also shed light on the multitude of IPs editing the article.

I'd like some uninvolved editor to have a look and trim the article to propriety. Thank you in advance for your help. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Bolt

I'd like to alert editors to this biography. The majority of the article is based upon controversy and crticism of him, despite the fact he is Australia's most popular coloumnist and political blogger. The article even fails to mention his show, The Bolt Report. I would like an editor not involved and who has no bias to try and clean this up. I think the article is vitcim of WP:BIAS and fails WP:NPOV. Thanks, Jackthart (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Coughlin

The article Kevin Coughlin has been repeatedly vandalized with libelous material. This calmed down for a year or so but on May 16, 2011 is started again. The same individual who vandalized the article before, {redacted} also vandalized two Facebook pages today.

I do not want to have a constant battle of vandalizing and deleting on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjcohio (talk • contribs) 20:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This situation could really use some more eyes. The material added seems undue to me, with only slight sourcing. However, the two editors involved both appear to be editing from a conflict of interest, one on each side. Dayewalker (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. This has the potential of not being solved in the near future either. It is pretty clear that Kjcohio has a more than common interest in this article; it is equally clear that the undue weight issue is correctly signaled by Dayewalker. Protection will only prevent edits from one side in the current conflict. Eyes, in the long run, are required. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Julia Gomelskaya

The article clearly suffers from COI, lack of reliable sources, look at my resume, etc. I've removed a bunch of offending material, but it was restored I think three times by now. I'm tired of reverting, but the article cannot stand the way it is. I'm not even sure if the person is notable in the first place--I found a few hits, but not a whole lot. Thanks for your help and input. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Line of succession to the British throne

The article Line of succession to the British throne is essentially a list of living people, whose main article is Succession to the British throne. It has been, and is, the subject of a wide variety of editing disputes (including alleged violations of WP:SYNTH, WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc.). It is certainly true that the vast majority of people in the line of succession do not meet the notability requirements, per WP:BIO.

My question: Does this mean the Line of succession to the British throne is in violation of WP:NLIST? If so, maybe it should be an exception to that guideline? Mlm42 (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The later parts of this list are basically a glorified trivia section full of original research (see the current dispute about inclusion or otherwise of certain people based on different interpretation of arcane details of their non-notable parents' moral conduct). Unfortunately the entire royalty area is basically very much a walled garden. (Disclosure: I am currently heavily involved in the area.) Hans Adler 16:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A difficult one. I think you can safely state that being third in succession to the British throne is notable in itself, but being 2,500th isn't. Essentially, it is a list of people in decreasing notability in relation to the subject, with an inevitably increasing opportunity for errors etc as one goes down it. I'd suggest that it needs to be severely docked, though at what point I'm not really sure. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggested restricting it a long time ago - the folks maintaining the list like it this way. I'd now likely just list descendants of Victoria, if I ruled the mess. Collect (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, but in practice shortening the list (or indeed making changes in any way) seems very difficult. There is a small group of editors dedicated to keeping the list in its entirety, and will revert any changes they don't approve. Do you have recommendations on how to deal with this?

Also, by cutting down to the descendants of Victoria we would still have a list of over 500 people, and the same problems would exist. Reliable sources, such as the Monarchy's official website, only list the first 40 or so people (and even they are not all notable enough for each having their own article). Mlm42 (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If there isn't a reliable source that states that a person is in line to the throne, they cannot go on the list. Wikipedia isn't a forum for genealogy or related WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Editors cannot override policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If only it were that simple.. the point is that the editors who are maintaining the list believe they are using reliable sources to bring this information together (even if the sources might not be up to the usual BLP standards). I believe they are violating policy, but they do not believe that.. so I'm asking, what's the procedure for dealing with this situation? Mlm42 (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If they have a reliable source they'll be able to add a source for each and every entry stating that X is NNNN in line. If they can't supply an appropriate source the entry should go. John lilburne (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne, it's not that simple. For example, no other source in the world claims that King of Sweden is number 217 in line. You could probably find a source that states the King of Sweden is technically in the line of succession to the British throne.. but the list is constantly changing - for example, a few months ago number 12 in line was born, and thus shifted everyone else down one (notice the numbering is done automatically).

Indeed, if number 100 in line were married and had a child, the editors of this article argue that it is not original research to include the child in line (even if no reliable source explicitly says it). Furthermore, they would claim if number 100 were not married and had a child, then it's not original research to deduce the child is illegitimate and therefore excluded from the line (even if no reliable source explicitly says it). Mlm42 (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That is the problem of those wishing to add the information not anyone else's. If the list was the best Tennis players, or the richest people in the world, we'd expect a source for listing X as 1000th in the list, otherwise the information would go, I can't see why different policies should apply to this list. John lilburne (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If we restrict the list to the top few dozen that will allow full sourcing and avoid original research, etc. There's no reason to exempt this list from WP:V. Will Beback talk 21:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad that so many people agree that the list needs to be cut down.. but I'm still not clear on how to proceed. I've been making this case for several months, including a few RfC's, and I don't feel like this list is any closer to being reduced in size, due to the very strong opinions of those involved. Advice and/or help would be appreciated.. Mlm42 (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Find the best available sources, then use the names on their lists. Will Beback talk 22:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If someone were to remove names from the list, they would be immediately reverted, because the names are likely listed in the genealogical source "Willis". Mlm42 (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There are some thorny questions about appropriate synthesis of sources such as the one discussed by Mlm42. But I think a more immediate problem is that of reliable sources themselves and not how to use them. Is a website on Angelfire created by a hobbyist an appropriate source? Should we be using it to list dozens of living (and likely obscure) individuals? Gamaliel (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Similarly the source "Reitwiesner" is also a self-published source, listed in the article, but determined on the reliable sources noticeboard (discussion here) to be unsuitable for the article. Nevertheless, there do appear to be some printed sources (such as Willis, one of the main sources), which give detailed genealogical information.. Willis doesn't discuss the line of succession explicitly - this is deduced by the editors. Mlm42 (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Reitwiesner is not a self-published source. Reitwiesner is dead. The source is published by Christopher Challender Child, Director of Publications of the New England Historic Genealogical Society, the leading resource in the United States for genealogical studies. Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have said it before and I will repeat it as often as you spread this misinformation: Whether Reitwiesner is dead or not, according to WHOIS he is still the owner of the domain. That someone else is keeping the domain alive (and we only have your word for who it is) doesn't make it any less self-published. People keep all sorts of things alive on the internet out of piety. It doesn't mean they exert any editorial control. Hans Adler 23:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with "my word" at all. The source itself says who the current publisher is. The problem is that the critics haven't even looked at the work. [23]Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the source claims it's published by "his literary executor, Christopher Challender Child of Boston, Massachusetts". In other words, it's identified as a personal project by Christopher Challender Child. This makes it a self-published source by another expert. Doesn't change the fact that self-published sources are not allowed for BLP material except under very narrow rules that obviously do not apply here. (In particular it would have to be self-published by the subject.) Hans Adler 10:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The Willis book is published by an American genealogy company.[24] While its listing of marriages and births may be accurate, it might not be a suitable source for issues of the British constitution. Will Beback talk 23:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed; and more generally, as several editors have pointed out, there are aspects of the succession laws whose precise meaning cannot be known, because they have never actually been tested. This doesn't stop editors (such as Noel, the article's main contributor) from interpreting the laws themselves and stating them as fact. Mlm42 (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There certainly is general agreement about the way the UKGBNI succession law works; the fact that a few people dissent doesn't change the fact that there is consensus. Tiny minority views should not be presented with equivalent weight. While I have been a major contributor to this page in the last few months, the vast majority of the page was created by other editors. My own interests are elsewhere. I have merely tried to improve a page which is well used. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If knowledge of "the way the UKGBNI succession law works" is being used by contributors to amend the list, this is WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I meant that there is consensus among reliable sources, and that only a small minority of sources suggest anything else. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the list should be trimmed to just what reliable sources (for example the official site) confirm clearly. Everything else is WP:OR at best. The difficulty here is that there are people working on the page who are good people doing good work that they love. It's just work that doesn't belong in Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The official site lists 39 people. Beyond that we're in more speculative territory. Will Beback talk 10:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It is more complicated than that as the position of Monarch within the UK is not determined by hereditary it is a "gift of parliament", so you can never be sure until the any monarch dies who will be the new one. It is quite possible that if the QE2 had of died a few months after Diana the position would have been given to William. Essentially this was the crises of 1936 when Edward whatsit abdicated, it was unlikely that he'd get the votes. All in all the list is entirely speculative. John lilburne (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps so. However there is a sourceable "line of succession", at least through the first 39. Parliament could choose to skip some entries, but that doesn't negate the sequence. This is clearly a notable topic and list. It just needs to be kept to a reasonable length. Will Beback talk 10:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The first 39 on the list here doesn't match with the 'official list'. John lilburne (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Not surprising. That shows how hard it is to create a list like this and how the inaccuracies are likely to grow exponentially with length. Will Beback talk 12:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently they know better than the official list compilers. John lilburne (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus here. So, I've been BOLD and cropped this to the 39 on the official list. I expect I'll be reverted, and I'm not going to edit war, so if others agree with this consensus, they should perhaps involve themselves with the article.--Scott Mac 12:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well done. In looking at the history of the article, and the edit summaries,I was struck by the frequent use of papist by one editor. John lilburne (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

And another well-done here, I'd missed this discussion, but I support this result. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I propose a new Wikia wiki whose purpose would be to carry on the work of those who took the line of succession well past the 5,000 mark. The goal will be to see how long it'll take till Jimbo gets on the list. And we'll take bets! I wager that Jimbo is 19,342nd in line for the British throne. ;-) Seriously, I'm glad we've found a way to trim this monstrous nightmare of an article. I'm all for being as comprehensive as possible, but it does get to the point where it's a list of private people, blue-blooded as they may be. szyslak (t) 18:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments about 19,342nd in line are misconceived. The list is finite and I believe complete, or virtually complete, and is maintained quite successfully. There remains issues such as the application of Royal Marriage Act, but the length has been discussed and resolved several times - see the arcchive pages. (For example, there are several sources pointing to Kaen Vogel as the perosn whi is correctly last in line. This page correctly synthesises the sources. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The list may very well be "maintained quite successfully". This doesn't however address two issues. Firstly, is such a long (and constantly changing) list encyclopaedic, and secondly, more to the point, doesn't this 'maintanence' involve a considerable amount of WP:OR? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Good points, except that these questions have been asked and answered many times on the discussion page. But to briefly answer here. Listing those in line according to British law seems much more enclycolpedic than many other social and trivial lists. Wikipedia here can be accurate and complete. As of OR - The list, simply lists people in line from reliable sources, and may synthesise this with (for example) a new birth. That is listing and compliling the information, it is not original, nor is it research. Reliable published sources exist which are verifiable. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

As others may have noticed, Alan Davidson, who is one of the list's regular editors, has recently restored the full list of 2500+ names. Mlm42 (talk) 01:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I will also say that, while these issues have been raised several times on the talk page, many (myself included) feel they have not been resolved in a satisfactory way. I think Scott Mac's solution of cutting the list down to the first 39 names (i.e. those listed on the Monarchy's website) is a good move. Mlm42 (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Alandavidson, on what basis are those on the lower (and constantly changing) end of the list in any way notable? That it is (supposedly) possible to compile such a complete list may be notable, but that doesn't make being on it in itself notable. Wikipedia isn't a database. (And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't much of an argument, either). To clarify why I ask this, an analogy. I understand that this list is finite, in that it is confined to legitimate descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hanover. In what way does this list logically differ from a 'List of descendants of Mitochondrial Eve' - a list of all persons descended via direct matrilinial descent from this verifiably sourced woman, who lived in Africa around 200,000 years ago - or in other words, a list of all living persons? That 'Eve' existed is notable (a lot more notable than Sophia, I'd suggest), but that I'm descended from her isn't.AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a list of people in line to the British Throne. It is not a biography. I am not sure why it is being discussed as one. I think it was an attempt to divert discussion. The discussion about Mitichondrial Eve is an example of Reductio ad absurdum. (In relation to restoration, let there be a consensus before a change.) Alan Davidson (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

BLP policies apply to content even where it is in articles that as a whole are not biographies. I agree with the people suggesting truncation. Also, even if Andy's mention of mitochondrial eve is an example of a reductio ad absurdum argument, that does not invalidate his point. Reductio ad absurdum arguments are not inherently/innately fallacious. Kevin (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It is emphatically NOT a list of people in line to the British Throne. At best it is genealogy that omits certain people of a particular faith (maybe), and the problem that you have with that is that for most of the non notable members on the list, you have absolutely no idea what their current religious status is, nor do you actually know whether they were born legitimate (under the rules) or not. So way before you get to #100, the list is bollocks. John lilburne (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you are clearly unfamiliar with WP:BLP policy, Alandavidson, can I suggest you spend a little more time studying it, and a little less time maintaining your list? Yes, a 'List of descendants of Mitochondrial Eve' is absurd, but at least it is possible to determine from a reliable source who is on it (i.e. all living members of the species Homo sapiens). Can you provide a reliable source that asserts that 'number 100' on your list is (a) definitely in line to the British Throne, and (b) 100th in that line? No, of course not - you have to engage in original research to determine the latter, at least, and are still in no position to make a definitive statement, given the uncertainties that John lilburne has indicated. Though the list is interesting enough, in it's own way, the fact that it is WP:OR, and unreliable, makes it unsuitable for an encyclopaedia. We have no business making 'factual' assertions about living persons that we cannot verify. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how personal the comments are. The use of the word "you" makes it look like I alone am responsible. The statemnent that I maintain it is also wrong. Please use merit arguments, and refrain from personalising this. In asnwer to the questions about 100th, the answer is yes. The person at this person is sourced and verifiable. The list is a result of British law. Alan Davidson (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The list is not 'a result of British law'. The list is the result of the interpretation of British law by persons not qualified to do so, using data that likewise is unlikely to be of the standard that law would require. It is also a list of entirely non-notable persons, many of them minors. Maybe contributors are getting 'personal' about those compiling the list, but given the personal nature of the list (which amongst other factors seems to be based on the supposed legitimacy or otherwise of births), have they any right to complain? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

(I started writing this before AndyTheGrump's comment of 14.49 so please excuse any repetition.) But interpretation of British law is original research unless it has been published elsewhere. For example, no. 68 on the extended list was/is King Harald V of Norway, who is descended from King Edward VII through Maud of Wales. Maud of Wales received permission under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 to marry Carl of Denmark in 1895; he later became Haakon VII of Norway and they were the parents of Olav V of Norway. Olav married Princess Märtha of Sweden in 1929, but did not seek permission from the British monarch to do so, as the Royal Marriages Act exempts "descendants of princesses who have married into foreign families" from its provisions. However a court case in 1957 established that under the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 any Protestant descendant of Sophia of Hanover born before the passage of the British Nationality Act 1948 is also a British subject. Haakon VII of Norway was such a descendant, so Maud of Wales did not marry into a foreign family. Olav V was therefore not exempted from the Royal Marriages Act and his marriage to Märtha of Sweden was invalid under British law. As a result their son King Harald V is not in the line of succession to the British throne, on the grounds of illegitimacy under British law. Is it original research to say he is not in line? Yes. But it is equally original research to say he is in line, just because his ancestry is verifiable. Opera hat (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your point entirely, except that the list is complied from reliable sources, it is not the role of those complied the list, (which has not included me) to interpret the law. Your attempt to interpret the law is original research. The role here has been to use reliable resources. Each and every entry that can be found that was not put in from a reliable resource should be removed; but not the others. Alan Davidson (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you indicate where we can find this 'reliable source' that list the line of succession? This source that states that person X is in position Y on the list? If this list cannot be found elsewhere (and apparently it cannot, beyond the first few dozen entries), there is no source - just WP:OR. I have little doubt that those compiling this list are sincere. Likewise, I have little doubt that their sincerity should not be mistaken for relevance to an encyclopaedia that relies on verifiable external sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

There are several sources. Every entry has an intial next to it (W or R or B or D etc) referring to the source. If you can access the article as it was - have a look. As for the position, this is a list of known persons in line from the sources; it does not state anywhere that (for example) the person at position 110 is 110th in line. That seems to be an assuption made by some readers. To do so is wrong; perhaps a should explanation woould alleviate this. A list can have bullet points or numbers next to it - should we change it to bullet points? Alan Davidson (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if that is the case, then we need an explanation of why such an intentionally-misleading presentation of data was made. This isn't just synthesis, it is outright falsehood. This falsehood is present in the very title of the article - a 'line' implies ranking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The sources allowed the individual's descent to be verified, but not whether that gave that individual a place in the line of succession. Opera hat (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as Opera hat has stated, Alan Davidson's claim is not true. The genealogical information can be found in the sources he lists; the source "R" for Reitwiesner was questioned as a SPS, excludes illegitimate children, but in any case it includes Roman Catholics in the line, so it doesn't coincide with our list anyway. Of course the point isn't about whether there are actually numbers next to the list.. numbers or not, there is no list out there that coincides with ours (or at least not one that's been brought to my attention..). Mlm42 (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the orgin of the numbering, it has been there a long time. I don't think that it was intentional - just a method of producing a list. Clearly the list was incomplete in the early days and I would have thought that noone thought it was complete and as such it was a list to that point. If the problem is the numbering, then remove the numbering, not the substance, which is from verifiable sources. Alan Davidson (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

But why is the article entitled 'line' if that isn't what it is intended to show? Frankly, this sounds like bullshit of the first order to me... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please be civil and don't use abusive language. I don't know why the list was given this name in 2003. But the recent changes have been about length. If there is a concern with numbers, remove them. If there is a concern about the name, put that on the discussion page and ask for a change. But do not delete verifiable resourced data. Alan Davidson (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Alan Davidson, I asked (above) "Can you provide a reliable source that asserts that 'number 100' on your list is (a) definitely in line to the British Throne, and (b) 100th in that line?" You replied "In asnwer to the questions about 100th, the answer is yes". Now you claim that the numbering is "just a method of producing a list", and that the numbers have no meaning. Either you were incorrect in your first assertion, or in your later ones. Which is it?AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It is not about length, although length plays apart, it is about having a listing people who are in themselves non notable and effectively labelling them up as bastards, or adherents of a 'reviled' religion in the 1680s. At a certain point the people mentioned are irrelevant in any meaningful way to subject of the list, and yet in order to include them on the list one has had to also include a whole bunch of other people that for one reason or another are disqualified. The list that was there wasn't just 2500, it was in the 10,000 range. Removing the numbering defeats the purpose of the list and just ends up as genealogy. John lilburne (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the logical approach. I think the above discussion was a diversion. We have different views and that is to be respected. I suppose I would echo the comments about the list of PM's cats made on the discussion page. After 8 years this list seems as complete as the sources permit; and it remains a matter of opinion as to its value. I think the list remains notable and very interesting. Clearly there are people who disagree. Do you think an arbitration would help? Alan Davidson (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration in Wikipedia is more like a criminal court rather than arbitration in the usual sense. It's for long-lasting disputes in which editors misbehave to the point that they can be sanctioned for their behaviour, and even then it's usually expected that enough other venues such as user RFCs, content RFCs, informal mediation (mediation cabal), formal mediation have been tried. Arbcom does sometimes stray into content territory and might be made to express an opinion on aspects of this lists, but they generally try hard to avoid saying anything about content. Arbcom regularly has to reject cases that were requested without taking these constraints into account. Once enough arbitrators have voted to reject such a case, it's removed from WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case by an arbitration clerk and (as far as I know) not archived anywhere. See the history of that page for examples. The last such case, however, was sufficiently important for Arbcom to come up with an injunction to address the immediate disruption, instead of rejecting it. [25]. The last request that was properly rejected was this. You can support the work of Arbcom by not bringing cases that have no chance of being considered. They might be more inclined to consider some aspect of this by motion. Hans Adler 09:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Oxyhydrogen

There is a continuous insulting of Santilli in the discussion when there are attempts by some hopeful editors to change one single word "fringe scientists" to keep in respect of Wikipedia policies about BLP. I have too many to list so I provide an example RKLawton says" Now as for the previous arguments regarding your friend's support of fringe science and his propensity to attribute conspiracies by his peers to suppress his work - how shall we best describe this? Words that come to mind are: quack, nutter, lunatic, paranoid, delusional, and so on. I think "fringe scientist" would be the more reasonable, and more polite term. The one thing we don't want to do is mislead our readers into believing this fellow is credible. If you would like to suggest alternative wording appropriated for an encyclopedia, please share. Rklawton (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC) " In my previous failed attempts I suggested that the article be changed to reflect the main article on Ruggero Santilli. I am providing below in a nutshell my suggestion by copying my discussion paragraph. I wrote "Please source reliable and peer reviewed publications with the words " fringe physicist" or remove it. Please demonstrate that Santilli's publication in AIP, Springer Verlag, Open Astronomy , Nuovo Cimento, Plenum are fringe science of remove the word fringe. The article about Santilli says "is an Italian-American physicist and a proponent of ideas some of which have been called fringe scientific theories." Quite different from "Fringe scientist" as in the Oxyhydrogen page. What is wrong with saying " physicist Ruggero Santilli who is proponent of the HHO theory which is considered fringe by mainstream scientists" this is also supported by several publication with statements pros and con against his theory. Please explain why my proposed statement is not acceptable or support it with peer -reviewed sources" This was received with insults as you see above. Note the reply in the discussion page of Oxhyhydrogen. There are two people/editors/administrators who dominate the discussion and block what they do not like. Maybe they are sock puppets since they work very closely. A few other editors suggested changes to the articles using notable and peer-reviewed sources but they were all blocked as sock puppets. There are many people who know about Santilli or who agree with him. Are they all disqualified to write in the discussion page?. If peer-reviewed articles or legitimate sources are cited , are they disqualified because they are pointed out by somebody who is familiar or has studied his work? Why are these two editors so opposed to Santilli to avoid any rational discussion? Reussi (talk)ReussiReussi (talk) May 16, 2011

On the contrary, you are the only one who considers Santilli being a "fringe scientist" as controversial, or different from "considered 'fringe' by mainstream scientists" or "proponent of theories considered 'fringe' by mainstream scientists". The question of whether the clearly sourced "proponent of ideas some of which have been called fringe scientific theories" and "proponent of theories considered fringe by mainstream scientists" (to use Reussi's words, above) are the same is open for review, but the rest of Reussi's comments are without referent to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I have added in the reference from the main Ruggero Santilli article into Oxyhydrogen to back this statement. The reference states that mainstream scientists have called him that on more than one occasion and that his efforts to sue them because of it have failed in multiple court cases in more than one country. SteveBaker (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

User blocked, as a consistent Sock Puppeteer. So this is moot. Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Farrhad Acidwalla

The report contains vague and falsified information about a minor with no reference links with evidence supporting the mentioned data. The page has been utilized only for self marketing purposes which is against the wikipedia alive persons page policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.111.207 (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't appear to be wikipedia notable yet - only real claim is to be on a list of the top 25 internet entrepreneurs - which although should impressive I can't access it and I don't think it of any note. Seems to be mostly a twitter user. Perhaps WP:PROD it. Off2riorob (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Dan Adler

This person's bio reads like an advertisement. Poorly sourced data, broken links can't even source a birthdate. Seems thrown together for the political campaign. Had to revert header tags for neutrality and spam as they were removed.

Maybe revise and mark as a stub until someone gets real info on him.--Cohen2011 (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I depuffed. Collect (talk) 11:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

SPA repuffed (saying deadlinks and youtube are important, along with laundry list of celebs) - depuffed again. Please someone make sure the SPA whose only edits are to this article gets a clue. Collect (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I cannot source a non campaign link to support the claim that his father was a holocaust survivor. One editor suggested leave a dead link, it's too sensitive of a claim to make. Please source the non campaign link or leave it removed. --Cohen2011 (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Found it/repaired the external - Dan Adler, who organized the event in memory of his father, Auschwitz survivor Mayer Michael Adler - here - I also repaired a couple of other deadlinks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Anne Sinclair

Could the community provide some help here? I am engaged in a discussion which will probably not be resolved without other users' input. Thank you. olivier (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Keith Vaz

Had problems with User:Miyagi2 blanking sections of this page as libelous - could do with someone looking over the whole of Section 4 to see what the referencing is like etc. Thanks. Mato (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

- trimmed the uncited and undue reporting of what turned out to be a minor issue. Off2riorob (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Chris O'Connor

Resolved

– vandalism removed and user warned - thanks for the report

Chris O'Connor, singer for the alternative rock band Primitive Radio Gods, is alive and well. He was definitely NOT found dead in his appartment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.129.165.12 (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the apparent vandalism [26] added by an IP belong to the US Army which has a contrib history suggesting it may be used by a school [27] [28] [29]. Feel free to do so yourself in the future. Nil Einne (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Requesting Admin. Arbitration for Tim Jones (politician)

Hello, I hope I've posted this in the correct place. I'm requesting help with an ongoing editing conflict between myself and BlackOpsMo regarding content of Wiki Tim Jones (politician). The crux of the matter is the inclusion about Mr. Jones participation in a "birther" lawsuit. BlackOpsMo has repeatedly removed all content from pertaining to it from the Wiki, as well as rewritten the article multiple times adding problematic (NPOV, Peacock) materiel. I have asked them numerous times for discussion, tried to avoid edit warring, and asked them to participate in aribtration. They do not respond, and further, have taken to even deleting my warnings/requests from their usertalk page. The Tim Jones Wiki is the only activity they partake in here on Wikipedia, leading me to believe that they are acting on the behest of Mr. Jones -- either a staff member, family/friend, or Jones himself. I have to the best of my ability taken a neutral point of view, provided reliable resources and quotes from Mr. Jones himself. In fact if it matters I'm even a Missouri Republican like Mr. Jones, but I place truth above ideology or party loyalty. As Joe Friday in Dragnet would say, Wikipedia should be "just the facts, ma'am". I'm very willing to abide by whatever decision the arbiter might make on this issue, I only hope BlackOpsMo will as well. Thanks for your help! Sector001 (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

mojo gurus

- Mojo Gurus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Roxx Gang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Kevin Steele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) <incorrect link, this is about the football coach>

My name is Kevin Steele I am the singer for the Mojo Gurus and Was the singer for Roxx Gang. Both of our pages are incomplete and include gross errors and downright lies. I believe this is the work of a disgruntled ex member. My manager has tried to correct both entries only to be told that we are submitting slanted information when the exact opposite is true. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.34.214 (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Im too tired to dig out all the policies that refer here (and I only know like a quarter of them), but as I suspected the article is:

unsourced
[redacted late-night attempt at humour, misunderstood by another editor, let's just leave it at that, shall we?]
in serious need of cleanup or deletion IMHO

And, Mister Kevin Steele, thanks for posting, you are one of the rare persons to have understood Wikipedia - conflict of interest, maybe without even having read it, how's your ego now?

Other editors, do your stuff, I'm off! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Mister Steele, your manager is being told he can't edit due to conflict of interest issues, probably. Neither can you, for that matter. You could open a discussion on each talk page asking other editors to correct the facts, but you will need to provide reliable sources. See here. Please note that blogs or MySpace pages are not useable, but if say Rolling Stone or some reputable local newspaper has ever printed articles about you, then please indicate this. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Captain Screebo is being a tad harsh. To be accurate; If the things in the article that you disagree with do not have reliable source references (a little blue number in square brackets that links to an acceptable third-part source document), then they can easily be deleted - and almost any experienced Wikipedia editor should be more than happy to do that for you. But if these things are referenced against reliable sources, then there is indeed nothing much that you or anyone else can do about it other than have the original source retract it's claims. I would encourage you to discuss it on the Talk: page of the article in question. SteveBaker (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Steve, okay having given the articles one or two cursory glances I think my reply was in order. I have just checked the view history for each of the two articles and you will see that there is COPYVIO going on, non-respect of NPOV, COI and so on, all by a user with the name User:Steele Management (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), who apparently rewrites the whole article to suit the band's POV and then gets reverted. I would also say that the user name and their actions appear to violate WP:ORGNAME. As I said above the articles are unsourced, do the bands meet the criteria at WP:BAND? I doubt it, take a look at this google search for the band name, mojo gurus.

So as I mentioned above looks like a good case for CSD (A7) or maybe just an AfD, other editors care to take a look and deal with the issues that they perceive? Thanks CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I went to put a ((UsernameDiscussion)) template on Steele Management's talk page but the user has already been indefinitley blocked by other editors (promotion and agressive non-NPOV editing). So the question remains to delete or not to delete the articles in question? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Please could somebody else try and take this on board, thanks, I am a bit all over the place, and theses are surely non-notable mentions? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 02:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan King

I added the category Category:British people convicted of child sexual abuse to the article. An editor reverted. The cat passes WP:BLPCAT. I'd like confirmation that the cat is within policy. Lionel (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

As a guess - the allegations and conviction are still under appeal - with some of them already refuted. Off2riorob (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The edit placed King, convicted in 2001 of having had sex with several under-age teenagers in the 1980s, in the same category as Sidney Cooke, a pedophile and killer of one child, and possibly two; and Fred West, a serial killer. That would clearly be absurd. In addition, he maintains his innocence, and there is some sort of appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, though the sources have lost track of whether it's ongoing. Plus, the conviction was not relevant to his notability, which BLPCAT requires. All in all, a violation of (the spirit, if not the letter of) BLP, in my view. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 11:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

While I certainly hold no brief for Jonathan King in any way, I have to agree with SlimVirgin here. -- Alarics (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What difference does it make with whom he shares the category? Fred West is also in Category:People convicted of theft, as are Winona Ryder and Claude Allen. By your reasoning we should also depopulate this cat because there is a serial killer is present. Anyway this cat isn't so bad, Gary Gliltter is there.
Not relevant to his notability? Really? He has become something of a national spokesman for prison reform. He wrote Earth to King, and "released Vile Pervert: The Musical, which included 21 characters played by King, caricaturing the police, media, PR industry, legal system, and his accusers." This conviction changed his life, had a profound impact, attracted international attention and most certainly contributed to his notability.
Most criminals claim innocence, and many, the ones with money anyway, are continuously in some stage of appealing or expunging their convictions. If the criteria was "not until all appeals have been exhausted" the only people we'd have in criminal cats would be dead. Well, that is not the criteria. BLPCAT is clear: "the conviction was not overturned on appeal." As of now, the conviction has not been overturned.

If there is some "philosophical" rationale for not using this particular cat that's one thing. But there is absolutely no basis in policy for excluding this cat. The cat passes WP:BLPCAT and is fully within policy. IMO this is a case of WP:CENSOR and WP:DONTLIKE pure and simple. Lionel (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

He's not notable as a prison reformer. The fact that the conviction changed his life isn't a reason for including the category. There's already a lot (probably too much) of information on his conviction in the body of the article. I too believe the category should not be included.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I honestly don't understand the arguments against including the category in this article. If the category is allowed at all in BLPs, then clearly it must be included in King's article: He is British and was convicted of child sexual abuse; how can there be any question at all about these facts? The rest is irrelevant noise; either the cat itself is legit and King fits it, or the category is disallowed in BLPs...it can't go both ways. Doc Tropics 20:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT requires more than that for criminal categories: "Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability." That's why.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This incident is absolutely relevant to his notability. Most Google hits prominently refer to his conviction in the first sentence, e.g. "One of the less glamorous guests on the Croisette will be the disgraced pop producer Jonathan King..."[30] Google "'Jonathan King' conviction" and you'll get 648,000 hits. This relevance is borne out by reliable sources. Regarding the length of the section, it is incomplete and should be expanded. King was a member of a pedophile ring with Chris Denning [31]. This should be aded to the article. Lionel (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take it easy with your accusations and either strike them or provide a reliable source that supports such extreme claims. Google-smoogle result returns numbers are valueless. I redacted it, feel free to reliably cite it and attribute to who is asserting this and replace. Off2riorob (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Lionel, you are confusing notability with "reported on a lot in the press". The two aren't the same. Even in the context of the body of the article, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but the use of criminal categories is even more restrictive.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"Police say he may have abused hundreds of boys over the past 30 years"[32] Well, if a member of a pedophile ring who abused hundreds of boys over a 30 year period doesn't get you the "child sexual abuse cat", nothing will! Lionel (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether he should be included, I would say it's obvious that a member of a paedophile ring who abused hundreds of boys over a 30 year period according to the police doesn't belong in the category of British people convicted of child sexual abuse if say he is murdered before any conviction. So what police say is not particularly relevent here. Nil Einne (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

He was convicted.Lionel (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point. He wasn't convicted of being a member of paedophile ring who abused hundreds of boys over a 30 year period. You yourself said that it was only a police accusation. Therefore it isn't of relevance in deciding whether he belongs in the category of 'British people convicted of child sexual abuse'. The same as us not placing something who wasn't convicted, but with potentially far more evidence then here of him being a member of a paedophile ring who abused hundred of boys over a 30 year period and a strong probability of conviction considered by anyone who analysed the case the only reason for no conviction either being because the person is dead or because the case is ongoing, in the category. In other words I'm being blunt. I think it obvious that if the category is of people convicted of something, what they may have done (or even definitely did according to all RS) but were never convicted of is not of particular relevance. So I don't see why we're even discussing this. Nil Einne (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Stereotyping with BLP categories is trouble: I dislike this notion of needing to "categorize" people in this manner, especially when considering "false confessions" and people framed by planting DNA (or more commonly drugs), then getting the police involved. Start by renaming the category:

"Category:British people convicted (perhaps wrongly) of child sexual abuse"

Until the Amanda Knox case, I had no idea someone could travel to Italy and be so-called "convicted" of murder and sexual assault when the coroner testified there was no certain evidence of assault, and no evidence of even being near the victim. Apparently, in Italy, all "early convictions" are subject to re-trial where 50%(?) are acquitted, but it might take 2-4 years of appearing "convicted" before a new verdict of "innocente" in Italy. Prior to that, the outrage was U.S. convictions for "pedophilia" because someone loaned a person that "Rob Lowe" celebrity sex tape with him as 17 years old. Please rename that category to include the disclaimer phrase "(perhaps wrongly)" within the category name. -Wikid77 05:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The category is something of an attractive nuisance, in that people will insist on adding it just because it exists. It's a small category, so the existence of a name alongside Fred West's is very noticeable. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 08:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The category should be abolished in any case. There is no such offence as "child sexual abuse". King was convicted of sexual assault on boys aged over 14, and it only counted legally as "assault" because they were under the age of consent, although only slightly under what the age of consent later became. There was no actual "assault": they were consenting sexual partners. Whether this constitutes what later came to be called "sexual abuse" (the phrase was not in use at the time of the offences) is debatable. As for "being a member of a paedophile ring", that sounds like the police talking it up for the benefit of tabloid press hysteria. It might just be that he happened to know Chris Denning, which someone in his then position would be quite likely to do anyway. If A knows B and C you can make it sound much worse by calling it a "ring". Wikipedia needs to avoid descending to the level of the gutter press. -- Alarics (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

There are many categories that are attractive nuisances. Criminal categories are just one example. There are the ethnic categories, the religion categories, the sexual orientation categories, and there are probably more categories of categories that could be considered attractive nuisances. These categories engender countless and often protracted discussion (argument) among editors. There's no real cause to eliminate this particular category. By that logic, we should eliminate all of them (something that wouldn't bother me personally). As for adding "perhaps wrongfully" to the category, that could be said for any conviction of anything - it shouldn't be added. In response to the consent issue, the idea is children below a certain age cannot effectively consent. Finally, I agree that police accusations are irrelevant and shouldn't even be included in the body of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

But we don't put BLPs into sexual orientation or religion categories unless the subject has self-identified as such, so those are not comparable situations. The problem with a category called "People convicted of child sexual abuse" is that there no specific offence called, and therefore room for argument about what constitutes, "child sexual abuse". I suggest that if we have to have categories called "People convicted of ...." (which personally I don't see the need for), they should only be the names of precise offences in law. In the Jonathan King case this would be "people convicted of buggery and indecent assault". -- Alarics (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

They are comparable because all of these categories require that they be related to the subject's notability, and that often creates a huge debate. So, self-identify is like conviction, and both require the notability connection. The Jewish category is the worst because people endlessly debate whether it's even subject to BLPCAT (is it a religion? is it an ethnicity?).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

If it dosent make sense its not true

How does even happen in our society...especially among our youth and young children how is making there own chemical compound make it okay to make them there own personal rag doll :( and especially them knowing all along this was known to go on but for how long...How is it fair that people of all ages came to a crises center in need of help... I am sadden and hurt that young youth come in and are being told its one thing then its another...The pharmacy knew this whole time exactly what it was..I thought that pharmacy who provided the medication was given to our hands was the one who was to explain what it actually aren't there the ones who make it and provided it to you...They tell you take as prescribed as it says on the bottle..it breaks my heart and soul to now known why this is even allowed to happen here in the united states..When they don't even know the true side effects off there own chemical compound they have created...life dose matter people matter...are loved ones matter..the ones who actually come for help are not even given the proper care..safety and lives are in there hands if we don't have helping hands... The question is how can people get over the fact that these are trusted health care provides.. One thing that people should always keep in mind that Change is always a good positive thing...Thats what people strive for in this country is always good positive people around..there actually people who are caring and compassionate In this society.. as you never give up hope you can achieve anything in your own mind..Dont give up your dreams goals or ambition to become who you would always wanted to achieve..Good people change the world and that's how the world should run... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.4.9.161 (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

This page is for review of issues related to biographical articles of living people on Wikipedia. Do you have have such an issue for review? – ukexpat (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)