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

Resolved

 – Stable for now. Re-post when it flares up again. JFHJr (㊟) 04:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Matt Drudge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yet again, insertion of "speculation" about Drudge's sexual orientation [1] is being repeatedly inserted. Kindly watch. Collect (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well reverted. I left a note for the editor. I was going to say "holler if you think protection is in order" but semi-protection here wouldn't help. Thanks, Collect, for keeping our BLP policy tattooed on your forehead. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Copyvio deleted. JFHJr (㊟) 04:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Is this summary written by Tapponnier himself? 'He has exploited that technique with rare brilliance ever since' 'His work has set a benchmark of quality and rigour that few have been able to match.' Non-cited inspirations, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.116.1 (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hard to say, and now even more difficult: I deleted the article as a copyvio; much of the content in the very first version came from this page which undoubtedly precedes the Wikipedia article. Thanks for your tip. Drmies (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It has been recently reported in the press (mostly in Asia and the Middle East), that the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal "convicted" in absentia several notable Americans of war crimes: Addington, Yoo, Haynes, Bybee, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush. This information crept into the Bush article on May 10 (I didn't see it until today), even though that related to an earlier finding by the tribunal. Also added to the article was Category:People convicted of war crimes. Amazingly, no one removed either the material (which was also a copyright vio) or the cat.

Today, a newly registered editor added significantly more material, including a separate subsection, to the other articles (except for Rumsfeld). I reverted all of it and left a warning on the editor's Talk page. He tried once to restore it but has at least for the time being stopped.

I have also left comments on the Bush Talk page.

If we are going to add any of this material, we need to be very careful how much material is added and how it's worded. I can't see any basis for adding the cat, although WP:BLPCAT doesn't address these particular circumstances, i.e., a finding by a body that doesn't really have the power to convict. Here is a Salon opinion piece that summarizes some of it. There are many other sources, though.

Unless there's a valid reason to treat one of the individuals differently, we need to be consistent as to any decisions we make across all of the affected articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Are there similar instances with more established bodies e.g. the ICC in the Hague, where individuals have been convicted even though not arrested/captured? We could make distinctions about the different institutions, but if the practices are the same... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue of being tried in absentia is more a content issue. In other words, if we're going to say that a court convicted someone but it happened in absentia, then we have to include that in the body of the article. The issue of whether to use the word "convicted" and relatedly whether to include the convicted cat is more difficult because it has to do with the legitimacy and authority of the body that made the decision. Thus, here, what is the tribunal? Is it an agency that was asked to investigate and make a report, as the Salon article suggests? If so, it has no power to convict and we can't use such a word. If it is a real court with power to convict but it simply doesn't have the power to arrest the person beyond its territorial boundaries, that presents a more difficult question. For the sake of this discussion, I think we should stick to deciding what the Kuala Lumpur tribunal or commission can and can't do.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

War crimes trials by national governments or the ICC are clearly notable, but since this is just some random NGO, I don't think it merits any mention beyond its own article. a13ean (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The commission article has now been edited here. I'm not sure I'm happy with the edit, particularly with the use of the word "convicted", but it's certainly better written and more complete than other material I've seen.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Three points: 1st, "convicted" is the word the news sources used, and the tribunal itself (evidently) used. Convictions do happen in absentia as for instance Italy's conviction in absentia of CIA agents and military personnel involved in extraordinary rendition. Convicted is the right word. 2nd, as to the legitimacy of the tribunal? That is more problematic. Problematic, because absent a declaration by some higher tribunal that they are not legitimate, it is not fact but opinion. I found an opinion piece by an evidently respected reporter that calls the legitimacy of this tribunal into question, and I think that opinion needs to be cited for balance. But no Wikipedia editor is qualified to judge, or for that matter conclude, that a country's tribunal is illegitimate, and therefore to be excluded from these pages. Which brings me to the 3rd and final point, and that is this discussion does not belong here in BLP. This is not about shielding somebody from slander, or libel, or revealing some fact invading somebody's privacy. The objection is to the weight to be given a decision by what was evidently a tribunal following (they claim) the Nuremburg rules of procedure. The weight the resulting decision deserves is a matter of opinion, not of fact. That needs to be discussed on the talk page of Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission, not here. The BLP policy is misused, if used to suppress and censor politically unpalatable fact. With best wishes.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 23:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC). With best wishes,ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 23:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

First point, agreed, that's the word the sources use. Second, too complicated to agree or disagree. Third, absolutely disagree, this board is not just for defamation or privacy issues, it is for any issue affecting BLPs, and, in particular, negative information, regardless of whether it's sourced. Also, the comment about censorship is unwarranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with ElijahBosley on all three points. I would like to see a main article written about the war crimes conviction with links to all parties involved. USchick (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Even before this conviction, Reuters reported that in 2011 Bush canceled a trip to Switzerland because "He's avoiding the handcuffs," and "Under the Convention against Torture, authorities would have been obliged to open an investigation and either prosecute or extradite George Bush." [2] So there are other legal grounds at play here besides the tribunal. Even Liberian President Charles Taylor, convicted of war crimes, compares his own actions to those of George Bush. [3] This is notable on an international scale and sets a legal precedent, definitely worthy of its own article. USchick (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you want to go beyond even what Elijah appears to want. Rather than beef up the Kuala Lumpur article, as Elijah has already done, you want to create a new article on some expansive topic of war crimes and the Bush administration. I started looking at the existing Wikipedia articles related to this rather amorphous topic and got dizzy as there was material scattered over many articles with the usual inherent Wikipedia problems with these kinds of articles, i.e., WP:OR, sourcing, weight, what counts as a reliable source, etc. I didn't write down the title of each article, but it was like a walk down chaos road - and you want to add to that chaos. And part of your basis, incredible as it might seem, is the comments of a convicted war criminal alluding to Bush. I have no problem with Elijah's expansion of the Kuala Lumpur article - makes very much sense to me, but your leap makes none.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason for a new article is exactly as you described, existing information is scattered all over the place and poorly sourced. A new article would end the chaos. What counts as a reliable source is very clearly defined in Wiki policy, so that is not an issue. USchick (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh, nothing would end the chaos.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Patrik Selin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Has been nominated for speedy deletion as "the information is not verifiable and poorly sourced and is potentially libellous. This has been removed twice already, however the information keeps returning. Please Delete ASAP. The Talk page does not give enough information as to the sourcing of the information.."[4]. Referred poster to OTRS, and but checking content and sources for some not so obvious libel seems a good idea.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Just so it's clear (it wasn't to me), the speedy delete was declined by Tikiwont.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything negative in the article. Whether some of it may be false, I don't know, as some of the links are dead, and I didn't check the foreign language sources. I did clean up the article, though, so it has less material.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for following-up --Tikiwont (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Incorrect content culled. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

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

The details of this article are not correct and the author appears to have confused David Garner (former President of the RSC) with David Philips (the incumbent).

Dave Garner has no civil honour, and the details of his academic background and even date of birth are all incorrect - these are David Philips' details. I was David Garner's doctoral student and so know him very well - these details are all wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorjpd (talk • contribs) 07:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. I've adjusted it. The article's very short, but I think at least now correct. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Vandalism removed. JFHJr (㊟) 03:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Nita Ambani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is defamatory language under nita ambani's major accomplishments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.14.208.104 (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The vandalism was there for about two hours before it was removed by another IP editor. You also can remove such vandalism on your own. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Tone and content addressed; see WP:BEFORE for notability concerns. JFHJr (㊟) 01:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Matthew Newbury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This does not appear to be neutral. Most edits are by the original creator, a user that has since been deleted. The sources given are mostly written from what appears to be the same prepared press release, possibly from the person himself or somebody promoting him and his interests due to the positive bias and tone. The person in question, while apparently a successful individual, is not particularly notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.167.150 (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you think the user who created the article has been "deleted". I agree the tone was bad, along with some other problems, and I've done some work to improve the article. As for notability, the article has been tagged since January 2012, but there's been no discussion on the Talk page, nor has anyone done anything about it. On the face of the article, the only thing he appears notable for is the bionic leg.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I've tidied up a bit further. Any BLP issues seem to have been addressed. Without discussing my personal feelings about it, I think the subject probably passes GNG. If anyone is inclined to challenge, the first step is at WP:BEFORE. JFHJr (㊟) 01:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Simon Cowell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is out of date.

Matthew Newton is not the host for Australia's "The X Factor" and never actually appeared. It was intended that he be a host but due to criminal charges for assault being laid against Matthew Newton he was replaced before screening. The original host was Daniel MacPherson. The current host is Luke Jacobz.

See wikipedia article on Australia the x factor and the official X Factor site au.tv.yahoo.com/x-factor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.47.8 (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the content accordingly, and per WP:CRYSTAL. JFHJr (㊟) 01:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Aleksandar Simić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Aleksandar Simić is getting spammed all over now, and there seems to be a WP:SPA with a possible WP:COI scenario. History2007 (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Depuffed a tad. Collect (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I cleaned up a little more as well, looks reasonable now. History2007 (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed a reference to youtube and some WP:PEACOCK that pointed to event literature. The latter is reliable to say something happened, but not to say anyone's noted, notable, etc. JFHJr (㊟) 03:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The article was re-puffed repeatedly by a single editor, 12text12 (talk · contribs). Several instances of outright fluff, and a few of WP:OR, as citations offered failed verification. This contrib at Commons makes me think the contributor is actually the subject's relative or someone closely associated. I've rectified the problems above for now, but this appears to be WP:COI and I have a feeling it will continue. JFHJr (㊟) 20:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

12text12 (talk · contribs) is apparently the subject himself. JFHJr (㊟) 20:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Josh Bowman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Joshua Bowman did not go to Bradfield ....... He is NOT Jewish ........ He did NoT date Amy Winehouse I know this because I am his Mother ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.61.58 (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting it. I agree with your edits. I've removed the poorly sourced mention of dating Amy Winehouse. It was in a showbiz gossip piece and at most amounted to him reportedly saying "we're just very friendly". I also removed mention of him having dated Miley Cyrus sourced to gossip mag US Weekly since "has been linked to" generally means they stood next to each other at some point. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 92.6 about the lackluster sourcing. Although what a mother knows doesn't trump better reliable sources, nearly any challenge in this case is enough to merit removal. I am ambivalent whether to retain the source at all within the article; other editors might reasonably remove it altogether. But I did remove the religious categories as apparently baseless. JFHJr (㊟) 16:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah I didn't see the categories, good catch. Another editor reverted the material back in with Twinkle, I've re-removed it and left them a note pointing to the discussion here. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the sources in question for the religious identification are Abba Nibi (states as an aside, with no source) and Entertainmentwise (citing "a source" to the Daily Express). I find these questionable. Religion seems not to have much context in this subject's biography to start with. JFHJr (㊟) 17:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The content has been added again with the edit summary "sourced"...again to the same sources. My opinion's pretty clear, but I'd like to have a consensus on it first. Thoughts, anyone? JFHJr (㊟) 23:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The sources are gossip blogs which are generally suitable for BLPs. The "Abba Nibi" one only mentions him as an aside in a parenthetical, and it's ambiguous if "Jewish eye-candy" means not-necessarily-Jewish boy who's eyecandy for Jews or means Jewish boy who qualifies as eyecandy. The other source is similarly poor, giving references to "a[n unnamed] source" in a further source. The poor (non-reliable) sourcing aside, BLPCAT holds it shouldn't be included: there's no evidence the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question or that it's materially relevant (think rabbi) to him anyway. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Leslie Daigle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A couple of jokers keep inserting a bit of trivia in this article, a minor event that in a continuous election cycle easily makes the papers. Consensus is claimed; it is even claimed that she is notable because of this. More opinions are appreciated. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

A good example of sourced content that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. A local councilwoman had a run-in with a security guard, and local media covered it. Let's exercise some selectivity. 71.241.196.71 (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies' take on the trivial nature of the content in question. It's not additive to her notability: it's local coverage and apparently of little to no enduring significance. I've left a note on the talk page; discussion seems to be coming along there. JFHJr (㊟) 00:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It has been nominated for deletion again. Dru of Id (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Endre Rosjo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This individual is claiming to have been given Admiral Type Powers by the British Government during the Falklands Campaign  Removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightowl777 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• An IP seems to have added a large amount of unsourced material in late April. I've reverted. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  Admittedly the older stuff isn't a whole lot better. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the rant by Nightowl as a BLP violation and WP:NOTAFORUM.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Alvin Curran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Hyacinth" inserts repeatedly the words, "Of Jewish descent" at the beginning of the bio of this living composer. Reference in the text to the fact that Curran often uses Jewish themes in his music, or that some of his music reflects his Jewish origins, would be unobjectionable and even useful, but the phrase inserted without a relation to the music is not only irrelevant but offensive (suggestive of the frankly antisemitic wording "The Jew Alvin Curran"). (I might add that I am writing with Curran's own approval and support.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susiebaby (talk • contribs) 15:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• You're part of the problem, too. You clearly know how to edit a page; you clearly know how to improve the wording to something relevant and "unobjectionable"; you've even written some of it in this noticeboard section. But your only approach to editing the actual article is to revert again and again. Stop being a knee-jerk reverter and write constructively! If you know how to make the article better with an improved and more explanatory wording (that is verifiable), do so. Reverting is not your only tool. Uncle G (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Prince Harry of Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved

 – Fixed by NeilN. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone has inserted quite a bit of speculative material in here about the Prince's sexual preferences, with all of the writing skill of a 15 year old Youtube addict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.211.5 (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It's gone, thanks for reporting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Mark Aguirre's father was born on the southside of Chicago. His fathers' father is from Mexico. Mark has three sisters on his mother side, he has other brother's and sisters from his father side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.233.94 (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Prove it! If you want to contradict the Seattle Times and add all of that other stuff, show a high quality published source that says what you claim. We are not in the business of taking unsupported biographical material from unidentified people. Show where this claimed biographical material has been published by people who are identifiable and who have checked their facts. Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Tony Shipley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Earlier I came across the article Tony Shipley. The 'Controversies' section is reasonably well sourced but leans a bit too far into synthesis, OR and gives undue weight. I'd have a crack at fixing it's getting late and I have an early start. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually it editorializes utterly -- I reduced the material which is actually sourced to the bit about blackbirds on a flyer - the rest was pure campaign rhttoric (especially since one source directly contradicted some of the claims made). Collect (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Pierre Bourque (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd like to request that a neutral party do a WP:BLP review on Pierre Bourque (journalist). A user, User:Spoonkymonkey, has attempted twice in the past two days to have it speedied — first with no deletion rationale at all, and then when that was declined he tried again with the rationale that article is mainly a criticism of a non-notable person that implies the subject inflates his own importance. He also previously tried to have it speedied in 2010, with the rationale not notable but no further detail on how that was true.

While I can see that there is some potentially problematic content in the article, the problem here is that there's significant reason (edit history, etc.) to believe that Spoonkymonkey may actually be the same person as a cluster of now-banned usernames which previously waged an active vendetta against Mr. Bourque — including the introduction of much of the content that he now disputes, an effort to overwrite the article with a WP:COPYVIO piece that was pure criticism of Bourque without even the slightest attempt at balance or fairness, and multiple attempts to remove the article's strongest claims of notability in order to bolster still other attempts at having the article deleted as non-notable (e.g. removing the fact that Bourque actually did hold a seat on Ottawa City Council, so that instead of an incumbent councillor who failed to get reelected, he was just being portrayed as a dude who ran once and lost.) So regardless of the article's merits or lack thereof, Spoonky can't be considered the most reliable judge of that.

However, since I've been directly involved in some of the previous disputes around this article, I'd like to ask for a neutral third party to review the article and make any adjustments necessary for compliance with BLP. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The central problem with the article was its lack of balance. It's mostly an attack page with a few stray background facts thrown in. I've pared it way back so the criticism part (no longer in its own section) is just a summary. I've also removed unsourced material. The article probably needs some expansion as to his political career because the sourcing for him having been a councillor wasn't really there, and I didn't go looking for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As I've already mentioned to you, one of the existing references that was already being cited in the article actually did support the city council stuff and just hadn't been added to properly footnote it — so I've readded it with the inline referencing to that source. Otherwise, thanks for your work; the whole thing's certainly been a bit mystifying and frustrating. Bearcat (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Kweku Hanson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A lot of negative info. Not sure this guy even meets the notability guidelines. It may be that most of the negative info is true, but the citations should be much heftier if so. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The same likely applies to his colleague, Paul Ngobeni (created by the same editor). Dominic·t 01:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Tim Pool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've been skeptical about this article's notability for several months now. Tim Pool is an amateur journalist who received media attention during the hype over Occupy Wall Street. His journalism methods were considered "revolutionary" by several papers at the time. Praise towards these methods was brief, ending by early February. I would expect impactful or game changing people to have coverage extending beyond a protest.

I believe this contradicts with Wikipedia's notability policy, specifically Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. My attempt to convince other of this back in January was met with a barrage of activist criticism, preventing any progress. Now that OWS has toned down I think its time to reconsider. Thanks--(Wikipedian1234 (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC))

I disagree with you and think that Pool is sufficiently notable for continued inclusion. His footage continues to be used by numerous major reliable news organizations and he himself continues to be the subject of numerous news articles in such sources (in fact another wave of these have appeared in the past 24 hours, as a simple google will reveal). Your assertion that Pool's time in the spotlight is over is obviously false. If he continues to be notable enough to have his material used by major news organizations and to be personally the subject of major news media reports, then I would argue that he is certainly notable enough to continue to have a WP article about him.

Additionally, many of the points raised in objection to your earlier attempt to delete the article remain valid for his notability in themselves. Based on what I see here, for you to attempt to characterize the expression of some reasonable and well-supported opinions supporting Pool's notability as "a barrage of activist criticism" seems disingenuous.

Finally, given the recent major OWS-coordinated protests across America on 1-May, and the current role OWS is playing in the massive NATO protests in Chicago, I believe your dismissal that "OWS has toned down" is premature. Autumnalmonk (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

George Tierney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like to request additional eyes on George Tierney and Greenville, South Carolina for potential BLP violations. A person sharing that name has recently attracted a bit of attention and it is resulting in inappropriate edits. I have already removed the violations on both, but it would be a good idea to keep an eye on both articles as well as the name popping up anywhere else inappropriate until the attention dissipates. Monty₈₄₅ 02:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous BLPN discussion

I raised this previously here (for some reason I can't find the thread anywhere; it was titled Camryn: OTRS request to remove the full name of a minor, who is a public entertainer). It's still regarding OTRS ticket: 2012031210006461. Camryn's representative wants her full last name removed from the article for privacy reasons, but it has been published in numerous online sources, some of them clearly meeting RS. I listed as many of those as I could find in the last thread, and her representative told me that they have all since been contacted directly and requested (or demanded, I'm not sure) to remove/correct her name and only use 'Camryn'. I think there was consensus last time that if those RS removed her name then we would as well, but what happens while those efforts are pending? Do we wait for completion or give them the benefit of the doubt and act ahead of the actual removals. Thanks, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"I'm going to remove the name if everyone else does" can cause a deadlock where nobody would remove it because everyone is waiting for everyone else. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The consensus was clearly that we should not remove the name. There was no consensus that if the reliable sources removed the name that we would. JFHJr commented at the end: "At any rate, the correct order of operations is to seek retraction and removal from reliable sources first. If we're left with no reliable sources, we'll be more obliged to remove it." No one commented on JFHJr's comment, and even JFHJr did not say that we would remove them. I would be opposed to removing her name just because her rep has asked the sources to remove it. I don't even see why we should consider it now. If in the future, the sources have complied with the request, that would be the time to discuss it again. It's premature to do so now.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I have no problem honoring this request. She's a child for heaven's sake. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I was not inclined to remove her name at first, but if the representative is making a concerted effort to contact those sources and get them to, I'm more sympathetic. He says he's in a difficult situation because, as Ken mentioned above, it's tough to get sources to remove information that is available on Wikipedia. I think it's worth a closer look. I also wonder what we gain from including her full name, as her family relations are not the main source of her notability. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

She's a notable child. She performs in public. She goes on tour. She's produced singles. She has her own website. She doesn't lose all of her rights to privacy, but she loses quite a few, child or not, and I don't see how we're violating her right to privacy, anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The article is pretty dismal nowadays, full of garbage clearly yanked from press releases and the like. I also believe that some of the reliable sources which attest to her name were print and not online sources; so that without a memory hole the information cannot be suppressed; and I believe at one time the article discussed her parents, at least one of whom was the subject of a Wikipedia article; and I'm wondering who removed that portion of the article, and what their justification was, since the parent-child relationship was common knowledge? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

[5]. Hipocrite (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

First off, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to discuss my desire to remove Camryn’s last name from Wikipedia. Camryn of course is not famous yet; she is known in the tween world, but not to the general public. And because she is not famous yet, she does not travel with an entourage or security detail. However, since she is the daughter of such a powerful figure, Gary Magness, we are constantly worried about her security and threats to her personal safety. And because Wikipedia is the first source that people utilize in order to gain information about public figures, I do hope that you will remove her name because of this. We’re not trying to hide her background; we are simply trying to protect her. Yes, her last name will come out in due time, but not when she’s just 12 years old. I hope you can understand my concerns, and that you will remove this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stamez (talk • contribs) 17:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC) — Stamez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"We"? Who is "we"?

I also point out that she is notable in some circles (else this article would not exist), and that you are seeking to suppress public information that has been published for years in various press outlets; the cat is out of the bag. Her name came out when she started becoming a performer, with the consent of her notable parents: you can't have it both ways. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

So you want to risk endangering a child because of her parent's decision? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Endangering?? Verges on hysteria. Full name available at IMDB. Without endorsing the state of the article (and by the way I've just removed "notoriety" from the lead), I don't think this genie is going back in the bottle. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Nomo. Let's see: a possibly talented child is pushed out into the world, with press releases, a website, publicists, etc., by her billionaire daddy the film producer, and because billionaire daddy didn't think to separate her publicity from his, and apparently didn't think this whole tween-idol thing through, we are the bad guys? Abusing Wikipedia is not a solution to his mistakes. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay -- as a matter of fact I'd like to reverse. I don't know what sort of danger is involved here, but if there are editors who think there is something that merits consideration in these terms, then fine, keep it out, at least until we get some sort of consensus on inclusion (normal per BLP). I'm not convinced that it will make any difference given the extent to which the name is already out there, but I see no great loss in keeping it out at least temporarily. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

We have no evidence of anything of the sort, Nomo. This User:Stamez is an s.p.a. with a pretty obvious conflict of interest. A Quest, of course, is a real Wikipedian; but nobody else is taking this kerfluffle seriously. Why are we letting a billionaire push us around to cover up his afterthoughts? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't care even a little bit about the billionaire. I'm more troubled by a child losing privacy via choices made mainly by others. I agree that there's no evidence of danger, and in the end I expect that the article will include her surname (as do the other sources that cover her). But I'm not sure I see the advantages of our doing so. In any event, I have no intention of reverting any edit that includes it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Taking an adversarial stance regarding this request is not the right approach. The whole premise of BLP is to mitigate the potential harm that Wikipedia's prominence can have on living individuals. A child actor can be more vulnerable to stalking, kidnapping, or other threats if her private life is too closely connected to her public persona. The request being made is modest, reasonable, and not particularly harmful to Wikipedia or its readership if granted. I'd rather we treated this as an opportunity to do a small kindness for an individual, rather than as a zealous stand against the one percent. alanyst 19:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I have no problems taking her last name down, for the simple reason that it's not necessary. Her notability is tied to her stage name, not her birth name, so it's unnecessary to the article. That said, to Stamez, I'd advise you that IMDb also has her last name, and wish you luck getting it removed from there. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd feel a lot more empathy towards this individual if their obvious PR agent didn't also do this huge addition of puffery. Are we a marketing vehicle for this tween? Are they embarrassed of their billionaire parents, or do they think if their fans knew that they had billionaire movie producer parents they might not be fans? Hipocrite (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

So let's not be a marketing vehicle. That shouldn't be hard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Bbb23 pretty much sums up my position. I also think Orange Mike points out something important: it's hard or impossible to unring the bell. Who rang the bell and how willing they were is not really at issue; the subject seems to continue to be a public figure. The motives behind the request are irrelevant, and SPA-related points are peripheral. What's important, then? A last name is basic biographic stuff for a public figure; so are her immediate and notable family relations. The specter of bad things happening because of those facts is neither substantiated nor greatly augmented by having the information here in addition to plenty of other sources of higher repute. JFHJr (㊟) 03:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is watching this. IP keeps removing the sourced parents info. (Their only edits to this page) I am up to 2 reverts with a request to discuss on talk page, and also referred to this discussion here. Personally I find none of the arguments to keeping it out compelling, especially the new one IP used in their edit summary 'She gets bullied at school because of her rich parents'. Her parents are (semi) notable, she is (semi) notable. While I hesitate to make accusations, if the IP is close enough to know she is being bullied at school, there is probably a COI involved. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Well thats 3 reverts for me and I am done. Have been reverted twice by IP and once by a single-edit account. No talkpage discussion and little edit summary of use. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Christopher Buckley (novelist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yale is an institution with ancient customs. Undergraduates are housed in "colleges" so Jonathan Edwards is in reality a dormatory, not a college fom which Christopher Buckley could have been graduated. He earned a B.A. from Yale College and lived in Jonathan Edwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.253.28.218 (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The text has been rectified. It wasn't terrible to start with. You could have easily corrected it with no problem, I suspect. Next time, when there are several people with the same name, please be specific as to what page you're talking about. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 19:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Not resolved (or at least not correctly resolved). My understanding of things (having actually attended one family graduation there) is that the individual colleges are not simply dormitories, but have (or had, it's been a while) some specialized academic programs, that the diplomas actually listed the "residential" college, and that each college held separate graduation ceremonies for its students. Perhaps we should get some guidance from someone with specific information, perhaps, say, a Yale student or graduate. There ought to be a fww out there. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my premature resolved template. I'm open to discussion, and to preserving the version before my edit (I don't often marry my edits). I'll sit back from here, if that's alright. I trust Hullablloo is more knowledgeable, but won't rely on just personal knowledge in rectifying BLP content. Thank you again. JFHJr (㊟) 10:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Vahakn Dadrian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Grandmaster added harrasing material with no direct citations [6] to the BLP of well-known Armenian-American scholar and during discussions aggressively deletes even the tag for citation [7], sending me to a website (highbeam) which asks for signing in or payment [8]. During the Internet search of added sentence ("a college arbitrator had found him guilty on four charges of sexual harassment in 1981, but had allowed him to return to work because the arbitrator believed they were singular events that would not happen again") it appears only at Turkish hate site http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/dadrian-sex.htm . Gazifikator (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

At the moment the only citation to the material is the Highbeam article. There is nothing wrong with a citation to a source that requires logging in or payment. I have no comment on the "hate site" as (1) it's not being cited and (2) I have no idea whether it is or isn't. I have looked at the cited source and the material fairly represents what's asserted, although part of the end of the material should have quotation marks because it's a quote from the arbitrator. Thus, the only way you can reject this material is if you think it violates some BLP-related policy, and although I'm not fond of this sort of thing in academic articles, if there was an actual finding (as opposed to just an accusation), as here, it generally remains in unless it's WP:DUE, which this doesn't seem to be.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Normally we would require multiple sources for this sort of thing. Apparently there's only one reliable source; I also agree that WP:DUE is is a concern here. So I'd lean towards removal, unless someone can produce more sources that show this was a bigger deal than it apparently was. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

First off, I did not add this material, as Gazifikator claims, it was in the article for years, and Gazifikator removed it claiming that he needed direct citations: [9] I simply restored it, because I believe being fired from University is a notable episode in anyone's biography, and Associated Press is a very reliable source, known for fact checking and accuracy. I don't think BLP means that we should omit facts from people's biographies, when they are supported by a reliable source. BLP only requires us to not use material from questionable sources, and in this case the quality of the source is not an issue. Therefore I think the info must remain in the article. Btw, I found the article in the online archive of the newspaper, so Gazifikator can access it now for free: [10] Grandmaster 18:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It may be just a product of Turkish propagand. According to material at Turkish site the "harassment" happened on April 24, the Genocide Remembrance Day. Something unreal... And then, even if it is from AP, this info exists only at Highbeam and Turkish sites. Nor AP official portal nor the Geneseo University site support this info, and there is not a decision of court, so this is just an accusation which is not published anywhere except of a newspaper. And if Google.books has 8300 materials on 'Dadrian', it shows nothing for 'Dadrian sexual harassment'. Is it notable for anyone except the Turkish site? Gazifikator (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

No one ever referred to that Turkish site. You are the only one mentioning it. Grandmaster 19:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I found this material in another database, ProQuest:

A 54 year old professor at the Geneseo campus of SUNY has been found guilty of "hugging and kissing a student without her permission, making personal inquiries into her sex life, and taking her by the arm and trying to lead her into his office." There were 4 other counts of sexual harassment that were dropped on technicalities but the teacher, Vahakn Dadrian, has not yet been dismissed. Women Together, the feminist group at Geneseo, is determined to continue fighting sexual harassment. (New Women's Times, May `81)

Hayes, L. (1981, Jun 30). Women fight back -- and win. Off our Backs, 11(6), 12-12.

Looks like the info could be verified from other sources as well, at least with regard to 1981 charges. Grandmaster 19:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

@Gazifikator, I think you're trying to tie this to an anti-Turkish site is a loser. There is a reliable source supporting the material and it's a verifiable source. That's the end of that story.

@Grandmaster, I don't think an article from a political organization is a reliable source for this material.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree. I'm not proposing to use the second source, I just wanted to demonstrate that the info was reported in other non-Turkish sources, besides AP. Grandmaster 19:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23, I'm connecting this not with the Turkish site, but with the Turkish state-organized denial of Armenian Genocide. It's sad you don't see the difference... What you're saying is against the WP:BLP policies: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out". Please show me multiple reliable sources you and Grandmaster are using except of Times Union paper. Gazifikator (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

First off, I don't see what Dadrian's dismissal from the Uni has to do with denial. Second, I see that Dadrian launched a case against the Uni, which he lost: [11]. 81 NY2d 838 Dadrian, Matter of, v State Univ. of NY/Geneseo. Decision was: Motion for leave to appeal denied with one hundred dollars costs and necessary reproduction disbursements. [12] The fact of dismissal I think could also be verified through the court decision, if there's actually a need for that. Grandmaster 07:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Pranitha Subhash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. I am Pranitha Subhash. I am the actress based on whom the page has been created. There are a few wrong details mentioned. But i am really helpless as the page is protected and i am not able to edit it. Please help!

2. 'Spouse' name entered does not exist. The person concerned (Pranitha Subhash) has NO spouse. I am single. This has offended me. Please block anyone from entering any such personal matters.

3. Also Age and birth date entered is wrong. My real birth date is 17th october 1993. Please change it for me. Please block people from entering wrong information. Please make the changes as soon as possible.

Please make these changes as soon as possible. Its my request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranita17 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Both these unsourced pieces of information have now been removed by User:JFHJr. The article does not seem to be protected. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The Pranitha Subhash article is indeed not protected. You can edit it by clicking "Edit" in the upper right of the article or any section. However, it is good of you not to edit your own article overly much because of the inherent conflict of interest. I have removed the information that was unsourced: spouse, date of birth. I have not added the date of birth you have provided because there should be a reliable source to cite. Unfortunately, posts here do not qualify as reliable sources. Finally, there is no sure way to prevent inaccuracies from returning; editors don't generally get blocked here at BLPN, and pages don't get protected here. But if you notice an ongoing or repeated problem at Pranitha Subhash, please don't hesitate to post again. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 20:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Being 16 in August 2008 is consistent with the year of birth claimed here. But I haven't found a source with a month or day. Uncle G (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid consistent is another word for WP:OR in this case. We need to wait on a reliable source. JFHJr (㊟) 10:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Deepak Shimkhada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deepak Shimkhada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Biography has multiple issues, especially regarding paucity of sources, and has been prodded. Yet I wonder if the subject's positions and published essays establish him as prominent in his field of academic study, per WP:PROF. Further thoughts welcome. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Good question. Does he meet notability? He has many publications, which suggests he is an expert in his field but I did not find reliable secondary sources on him. I reviewed relevant policies but did not find an answer to the question whether having multiple publications in a field establishes notability without confirming how often they have been cited (which apparently costs money). Perhaps other editors have dealt with this situation.Coaster92 (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

As it stands it's a difficult call. Mostly I brought it here because the article had been prodded and subsequently deleted altogether by its author, and rather than adding a speedy template, as I would have had the subject been obviously non-notable, I thought it still merited a few looks. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated for deletion JFHJr (㊟) 04:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Isobel Redmond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article says Isobel came from NSW and implies she immediately set up her own law firm in Stirling, SA. She has told me her first legal job on SA was with Labor law firm Duncan, Groom, and Hannon. Terry Groom formerly of that firm, and a former ALP Minister in SA went to school with me, and he confirms that. It may be that she set up her own law firm in Stirling thereafter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.160.87 (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• The person who rewrote that section has been notified. See User talk:Timeshift9#Factual errors in your biographical writing. Uncle G (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Botsa Satyanarayana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

He is not a leader as projected. Botsa has dubious distinction of being part of [redacted] since 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.22.55.2 (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Alright. Besides leveling commentary, can you provide any reliable coverage by unrelated parties indicating such? If you believe this article is fit for deletion, I suggest you start at WP:BEFORE. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 10:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Psst! JFHJr! Read this edit. I've just excised a whole paragraph of wholly unacceptable material (ironically for two different reasons) from that article under the BLP policy. The editor without an account wasn't asking for deletion. Xe was commenting on that removed material. Uncle G (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to suppress these unsupported claims. --Dweller (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Uranium poisoning in Punjab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While this is not a BLP article, it's raising several BLP issues as apparently two sides of some contested research are casting insults and accusations at each other in article space. It seems both sides are violating WP:COI, WP:RS, and WP:BLP all at once so I thought this needs some attention from admins. Thanks! Autumnalmonk (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Additionally, one party has also posted a complaint at the Help Desk, which is how I first became aware of it. Autumnalmonk (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment Calling the content of that page an "article" is a grave insult to proper articles. It is a very rant-ish "wall of text". Roger (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted back to a decent version with inline refs and removed the wall of text. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Flaawless (talk · contribs) seems to be creating some sort of biography in his sandbox which mentions the names of at least 2 teachers. BLP applies in userspace - I'm not sure what's most appropriate to do here. I'll tell him about this. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Mehdi Hasan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm concerned about the growth of coverage of this political journalist's religious views (which are apparently fairly mainstream Muslim). Although some of the criticism is ostensibly reliably sourced, its significance doesn't seem likely to be enough to justify ten paragraphs (in an article running to 17 paragraphs in total.) I would appreciate it if other editors well acquainted with Wikipedia policy would take a look. --TS 16:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think some reduction and judicious summarizing (to replace extensive quotations) would help. Frustrating, though -- other parts of the article are unsourced and yet that section is fine for sources. I'll hold off for now to allow others to assess and add their views. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Richard Dean Starr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article not neutral too much advertising. Thks "Driven by the slogans, "The Ultimate eBook Store" and "Read and Change the World", eRead.com will feature one of the largest independent print and ebook inventories available anywhere. A portion of all sales from eRead.com will go directly to select non-profit literacy and educational causes around the world, areas specifically championed by the company's founders. The beta site launch for eRead.com will take place in the first quarter of 2012, with the official launch to follow shortly thereafter.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loeffler86 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Pruned some. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Stuart C. Lord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My contributions, sourced with newspaper articles, were removed by another author, whose reduction creates a biased article. When I spoke to the author, he was quite defensive.Donalds (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Your additions were added and removed in early March. Why are you bringing this up now? Although you did post a comment to the Talk page in March, no one replied, and you seemed to have dropped it. Also, I don't see where you raised this issue with the other editor (the creator of the article). When and where did that happen?

The removed material was out of balance. The part about Lord's resignation was far too much information that had more to do with the university than it did with Lord. The part about the layoffs at the university seemed almost irrelevant to the Lord article, although I must say there's a lot of material in the Lord article that is less about Lord and more about other things.

Finally, with respect to Lord's resignation, as the article stands now, there is a big hole. It says in the lead that he resigned, but I can't find anywhere in the body that it says so. It is a notable event and should be addressed in the body with the lead summarizing it. Perhaps you can try adding back some of the resignation material to the body, keeping it fairly brief. I'd skip the layoff stuff. I'd also post more information on the Talk page about what you're doing and why. You can also point to this discussion if you like.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Bill Miller (umpire) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This [13] is neither 'very big news' nor adequately sourced; without proper cite assessments re: strike calls appear to draw conclusions based on original research. Here's ESPN's characterization [14], which is quite different, and clarifies that it's more newsworthy for the player than the ump. Wiser course is removal of content as trivial. 71.241.200.94 (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the entire section. If we include every controversial call a sports official makes we'll be at this for a while. Some eyes please. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 02:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that this event is reliably sourced in the article but the ESPN online coverage looks reliable. This seems to be a newsworthy event in the sports/baseball world and I do not see why it would not be included in the Miller article and referenced to the ESPN online site. The exchange highlighted both Miller and Lawrie. I think it is an interesting event in Miller's life, not that he might have made a bad call but the chain of events after the calls. I think it could be included but needs to be rewritten more in accord with the ESPN account.Coaster92 (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between a single bad call that got coverage at the time, a single bad call that got persistent coverage - see Jim Joyce (umpire), and an umpire with a history of bad or controversial calls - see Joe West (umpire). If the Lawrie/Miller flap is still getting coverage in July, maybe. But otherwise it's recentism. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, I don't see that a bad call is the newsworthy event here. Rather, the chain of events that gave rise to a MLB player assaulting an umpire (even unintentionally) is the event as I see it. As I understand it, this type of occurrence is rare and newsworthy at least to sports/baseball followers, who are the likely readers of an article about a sports figure/umpire. Could you direct me to the policy that would apply here to exclude this? Thank you.Coaster92 (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:PERSISTENCE is about notability, though WP:NNC allows non-notable content into articles about otherwise notable persons. Between the two, content must be assigned due WP:WEIGHT. That means some things appear as sections, others as single mentions, and others yet not at all. It doesn't matter if an editor here finds it interesting or unusual; it matters if reliable sources do, though. So is this event of enduring biographical importance? If it is, what does the coverage look like? Just one ESPN? JFHJr (㊟) 01:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks JFHJr for pointing out these policies. First, this is an article about Bill MIller the umpire, not the event. It looks to me from just googling Miller that there are sufficient sources to establish his notability. Then there is the question of whether to include the assault against him by the MLB player. From googling Miller, a number of sources in addition to ESPN appear about the event. I do not see why it would not be included in his bio article. The article as it is now needs development and additional sourcing but it seems to me that Miller and the event meet the criteria for inclusion.Coaster92 (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it does, but we must be careful not to give it undue weight. It's a possibly significant event, but I doubt it has long-lasting significance. As such, a 1-3 sentence mention of the event, stating only the facts, would be appropriate, while giving it much information wouldn't be. Example (feel free to just copy/paste this): "On (date), Miller was involved in an altercation with Toronto Blue Jays player Brett Lawrie. While disputing a strike three call by Miller, Lawrie spiked his batting helmet on the ground near the plate, which ricocheted and hit Miller on the hip. Lawrie was immediately ejected, and was suspended for four games." If it has more than that, it's probably too much. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Jorgath. I reviewed WP:UNDUE and I do not see how this situation falls under that policy, which deals with opinions and how they are weighted. Maybe there is another policy that would apply here? Otherwise, it seems this event would be appropriate for coverage. Thanks.Coaster92 (talk) 05:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I just found the relevant section of WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT, nestled amid the talk about viewpoints, which states that "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." So I will have a look at the article and see what would seem appropriate to include on this topic.Coaster92 (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Cassandra Clare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cassandra_Clare&diff=prev&oldid=493533879 has once again added grudge material which has been repeatedly removed by editors over the past several years as violating the biographies of living persons policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.58.212 (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• I've removed the personal attack in question and issued a warning to the culprit, who appears to have created an account solely for vandalising that article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I've also requested semi-protection for the article due to the BLP/attack nature but it may be decided that the volume of vandalism is too low to warrant such measures being taken. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
• Update - page protection has just been granted, which should curtail vandalism and BLP issues of this nature. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It may also be worth deleting the SPA's edit summary; the people behing this campaign have learned that the edit summaries persist even after the content has been reverted, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Craig Thomson affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is riddled with factual inaccuracies, political bias, poor and unreliable sources, and plain, ordinary bold-faced lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.230.139 (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried pointing out the problems in detail on the talk page? Talk:Craig Thomson affair --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

That might be the next step, although I would ask that editors familiar with BLP policy might please examine this article and perhaps keep an eye on it; the subject is currently a very hot and very ugly current news item. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.230.139 (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Please make it the next step. There is an absolute feast of sources at the moment, and the FWA report provides a rich lode of facts. However, using the subject of the article as a reliable source is not a course I'd recommend. For example, he may say that he voluntarily left the ALP, but this is inconsistent with the Prime Minister's statement. --Pete (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Robin Quivers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The latest entry contains incorrect information and incorrectly quotes the article. Neither Robin Quivers or her representatives have stated where the tumor is attached. They have stated that it was pressing on her bladder, not attached to it. The date of her surgery is also wrong. She underwent surgery on May 23, 2012. Please remove this incorrect information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzire (talk • contribs) 03:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• If you'd provided an edit summary, saying something along the lines of "Removing information that misrepresents the source.", instead of leaving the edit summary blank as you did, then you wouldn't have been mistaken for one of the many content blanking vandals that idly blank random paragraphs. You could have even corrected the sentence. Use the edit summary to summarize your edits, and try approaches other than wholesale blanking when you can clearly write, as you did right here, a verifiable alternative sentence. Uncle G (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

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

This was posted on my talk page:

I'm new :waves:

I need some help. I need a neutral 3rd part to resolve an editing issue here with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz here --> Jessicka My point: "Art Slant,[15] Juxtapoz,[16][ Supacute,[17] Coagula Art Journal, [18] & Hi- Fructose [19] are all reputable 3rd party Art sources. Saying these articles are written by friends is purely speculation on your part. Jessicka's wiki page clearly states that she's an artist. Listing past art shows with 3rd party references is just like listing the albums she's released as a musician in her discography. Both are wiki relevant & significant"

Thanks!

(Lifespan9 (talk))

I hope someone here knows about this matter. Thanks! George Ho (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• George has been extraordinarily gullible. "Lifespan9" is not a new user, as they claim, but one of a small number of disruptive users who periodically arrive from buzznet.com, editing under multiple names and IPs, determined to turn Wikipedia articles on their friends (and, sometimes, each other) into fan pages and advertising. "Lifespan9" appears to be User:Swancookie's newest sock, marked in particular by the habit of canvassing editors who've been on the other side of editing disputes (like George) with whoever's removing their promotional edits and appealing to them as "neutral third parties". Prior campaigns have included efforts to write up someone who never actually sold a screenplay as a network TV screenwriter and an interminable effort to add reports of Jessicka's wedding, including lists of gifts and guests, into a ridiculous number of articles. This should be stifled rather quickly and emphatically. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • After a brief talk with Lifespan9, I clearly begin to have faith on this person, and I have a good feeling that I'll get along with Lifespan. In the meantime, evidently, I don't know what is going on with the Jessicka issue, but I know this: Hullaballoo has been taking Wikipedia so seriously without considering another side on everybody, especially COI "violators", "sockpuppets", and primary affiliates. It has been on for years, and I don't know when the whole issue should stop. Nevertheless, Hulla gave me a trout because this user still believes that Swan and Life are the same person. --George Ho (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • No, George, I gave you a trout for jumping head first into a long-running circus without making even minimal effort to check out what's been going on. You've been annoying me for several months because I take the WMF's nonfree content policy seriously and caused several of your uploads to be deleted. Get over it. Several of us did some very hard, very unpleasant, very necessary work a while back in dealing with a few nasty, manipulative people who are trying to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool. And now you're helping one of them try to sneak back in. Take a good look at the contribution histories of those two accounts you have "faith" are different people, as well as the IPs who've been trying to add junk to Jessicka lately. If you're rational, you should change your mind. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Why can't you report this to WP:sockpuppet investigations if you are serious? I can't do it for you just because of your suspicions. Accusing someone for sockpuppetry and then not reporting sockpuppetry properly is uncalled for. Clearly, I see paranoia. So maybe IP and the user are the same person; big deal. There is no adequate evidence that swancookie is Life. I have checked older posts, and I have also looked at posts about you in WP:requests for comment/Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. And since when have I annoyed you for several months? --George Ho (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• It's something that's been going on for years, George Ho. See /Archive64#Lenora Claire, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenora Claire, and all of the discussions that they take you to. Uncle G (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Sure, from what I've been reading, rules were broken inappropiate. However, I don't see enough communication between "violators" and "reporters". Promptly, I see some misjudgments and miscommunication, but I don't know. In my view, editors haven't known about sockpuppetry, COI, and stuff. There are harsh accusations, but WP:SPI has no reports on Swancookie. I'm still checking... As for the "gullible" part, I do the "innocent until proven guilty" approach and must always do so. --George Ho (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• Since part of this discussion is about me, I only thought it right to respond. I'm new to this so forgive me if I'm doing something wrong. All I really wanted was to make sure my edits here [20] on the article Jessicka were correct.

"I need to know if the edits I made to the article Jessicka here [21] are resources from independent authors and third-party publications? Are Art Slant,[22] Juxtapoz,[23] Supahcute,[24] Coagula Art Journal, [25] & Hi- Fructose [26] all reputable 3rd party Art sources? If so can my edits be left on the article Jessicka

":Those all look good to me. By the way, you only need to use one ((Help me)) template; using any others doesn't alert us to your request any faster. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C)} 23:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)"

I did not want to get into an edit war with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz . I'm not a sock puppet. The only reason I know any "wiki speak" is because my old roommate use to edit articles here a lot in her spare time. Like I told George Ho, I'm not here to be disruptive. I'm here to learn and abide by wiki policy and become a good editor.

I tried to explain to Hullaballoo that my edit to My Ruin was a mistake but he blanked my good faith comments that I made on his talk page. He went on the accuse me of being somebody I'm not and now we are all here. I think the article My Ruin still could use some editing but it's clearly beyond my editing abilities.

I apologize if anything I did or said lead Hullaballoo to think I was somebody else. In any case, I don't think it's necessary to be rude to anybody. The only reason why I went searching for a 3rd party is because it was the only way I knew how to solve an edit disagreement with my very limited knowledge of wiki operations and practices.

Lifespan9 (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Footnote 3 of Michael Behe has a claim that is backed up by a self-published source. WP:BLPSPS says "Never use self-published sources as sources of material about a living person." It seems to me that this should be removed immediately, shouldn't it? There is a discussion about the article at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#Edit warring on BLP. StAnselm (talk) 04:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The sentence: "Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community,[3][4" cites The Washington Post and the Stanford Review. So I'm not sure what you are referring to.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah - it's now been removed. I was talking about footnote 3 in this revision. StAnselm (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Rachael Bella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One slight error in Rachael's biography. The article states that she grew up in Santa Monica but she actually lived her early years in South Dakota (Mainly Vermillion, S.D.) and in New York. I am a close personal friend of her mother Wendy Fremstad and know this to be true from talks with Wendy over the years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.54.188.244 (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the statement in the article is unsourced, I've removed it (and also some other material that's unsourced or irrelevant to her biography). Unfortunately we cannot use your conversations with Wendy as a source - are there any other sources that discuss this? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Rosenfeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is not neutral and contains statements which are not verifiable, and not supported by independent research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxandhounds (talk • contribs) 18:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about the neutrality, but I've added a template indicating that, as you say, most of the content in the article is not supported by references. Please add inline citations to independent reliable sources if possible. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Riki Ellison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Never in my career did I play cornerback also I was a member of the 1989 Super Bowl Team for the San Francisco 49ers but was on the Phyiscal unable to Perform list as i was injured during the season and received my third super bowl ring from the San Francisco 49ers, please reference the San Francisco 49ers. Also I played 10 credited seasons with the NFL please reference the NFLPA or the NFL.

I am Riki Ellison — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.195.190 (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I have raised the matter here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#Riki_Ellison --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I see no mention of "cornerback" in the article. However, I found sources to corroborate the claim for 1989 and have updated the article. My guess is that someone looked at a stat site and saw that Ellison didn't play a game that year and presumed he was not on a team. Thanks for pointing this out and glad that it could be verified.—Bagumba (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Kemp is an activist with the British National Party, Britain's often-controversial far right political party. This article has a long and chequered history, with three separate appearances on this noticeboard (1, 2 and 3) and three AfDs, the latest of which I just closed as no consensus.

I am posting this here for the reasons listed in the AfD closing: to give BLPN regulars a chance to look again and reconsider whether or not the article is complying with BLP, whether it is a COATRACK, and whether there are any other BLP-related issues with the article that need considering. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say that was a delete outcome at AFD - Which comments/votes have you discounted ? - do you mind if I ask another admin for a review? - Ah I see now - removing the spi accounts there is no real discussion - sheesh - hes not very notable and coatrack is a bit of an issue - As per this comment, "It will probably not be very good ever because people only edit it to push one agenda or the other. There is no interest in telling his story to inform readers. But that is life on WP". Steve Dufour (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2009 - Deletion is my position for that reason. Youreallycan 20:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Need advice on what to do with this sentence (below) currently in the Career section of the article and which was characterized by a peer reviewer as "coming completely out of the blue":

• In April 2000, Nader, as president of Maharishi University of Management (Holland), issued a statement to celebrate "the dawn of a New World Order of Peace, as demonstrated by the invincibility of President Fidel Castro of Cuba, the freedom of President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, the Divine Rulership of President Abdurrahman Wahid of Indonesia, and the casting off of corrupt democracy by President Robert Guei of the Ivory Coast". [bold added by me for emphasis]

There are three citations given:

• An 1100 word newswire service, press release entitled: "Maharishi University Of Management, Holland, Celebrates The Dawn Of A New World Order Of Peace -- The Rise Of Perfection In World Politics And Economy, April 6, 2000, [27] which lists the subjects name, Tony Nader at the bottom, indicating that he was the author of the press release about his employer and its views on politics etc.
• A reprint of the same press release cited above: Asianet Summary For Thursday, April 6, 2000, AsiaPulse News AsiaNet, a press release distribution service
• A book by a Yale architect professor, named Keller Easterling (2005) cites the quote but appears to attribute the quote to the Maharishi not the BLP subject. Tony Nader is not mentioned, in reference to the quote. (see page 88) In the book's footnotes on page 212 it cites the quote as being from this now dead, Maharishi URL: [28] To see the book click here (but you need to sign in to Amazon to view the page)

If we want to use primary sources for the article there are lots of others primary sources [29][30] [31][32][33] [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] So.... should the current quote be removed? Or should additional quotes from other primary sources (such as his books etc) be added to create balance? I need some advice on how to handle this. Thanking you in advance for your participation.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I would remove the quote because it has no real secondary coverage. BTW, what is it relevant to, actually? As an aside it's missing a quotation mark at the end.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The text was added in block quote format, for emphasis, by a now banned editor. [42] I'm not sure what he/she had in mind, as it has no relevance or notability in the subjects life. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

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

This person is a UK Celebrity - best know for being an 80's singer and an ex-girlfriend of Simon Cowell. There has been a long running dispute on Wikipedia that has turned into an edit war regarding her birthdate. Her official birthdate ( as mentioned on her official website at http://www.sinitta.com/?page_id=125 ) is October 19th 1968. However users have claimed that this is a stage age and her actual year of birth is 1966 - but there is no proof, reference or evidence for this whatsoever. I feel that with lack of any other proof from official sources Wiki should use the 1968 date she herself states, and a section in the article detailing the other claims is sufficient - which is how it is currently now. However it is always getting changed back to 1966. Can we get an official Wiki resolution on this or perhaps a lock on the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.194.49 (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems even the BBC is cribbing our article [43], so it may be impossible to find an independent reliable source, and blogs comment on the discrepancy. Dru of Id (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The BBC uses the lead from music articles en masse in the "/music" section of the site. Nothing to worry about, things like the News site are editorially unconnected to Wikipedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and the BBC have the 1966 birthdate with the source credited as Wikipedia. Yet she herself says officially its 1968. So it doesn't look good on Wikipedia to be putting out a different date. My thinking on it is that probably 99% of celebrities pages on Wikipedia have got birthdate information from a celebrities official site or PR, so however wild the claim (as long as the irregularity is documented in the article, as it is) the one that she says herself should be the one in the header and info box on wiki. 81.105.194.49 (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Lauryn Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lauryn Hill (Singer) was born on May 26, 1975. Many news reports, articles, etc erroneously list her birthday as May 25. Her correct birthday was listed after a YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1tOfw1nbAc) was posted of Ms. Lauryn Hill CLEARLY stating her birthday as May 26. It has since been changed back to May 25, with the editor citing Rolling Stone magazine as their source. Once again, the media has their facts wrong about Ms. Hill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.82.254 (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The YouTube video, although funny, is hardly a reliable source. Almost unviewable it's so dark. However, May 26 is correct per the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia. The IP who changed it to the 25th before you had no basis for the change.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted several recent edits to the Process oriented psychology article by User:NotMindell, an apparently new SPA user who appears to be wanting to edit the article in a non-neutral manner in order to discredit Arnold Mindell, the founder of this psychotherapy school. The user name of "NotMindell" and the comments on his own talk page suggest that he or she has a personal agenda against Arnold Mindell. I would appreciate it if some administrators and other experienced editors could keep a watch on this article for BLP and other policy problems as I think an edit war is a strong possibility. If I should have posted this message on another page I will appreciate knowing. Thanks! Afterwriting (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The article is in very poor shape. It lacks sourcing for large swaths of material, and that lack of sourcing has been tagged for a long time. A lot of the sourcing it does have comes from Mindell. Having an article about a theory by a particular person that is sourced almost exclusively to that person is untenable. It has to have secondary sourcing as to what it is and that it is notable. Unless you have a compelling reason not to, I'm inclined to remove all of the unsourced material and much of the self-serving primarily sourced material. I have no comment about NotMindell except that the name violates WP:USERNAME, specifically WP:REALNAME, and I've advised him of that problem on his Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article has numerous policy problems and that much of it needs removing or appropriate referencing. My principal concern, however, is that "NotMindell" and others may continue to add critical personal commentary in a non-neutral manner. Thanks for any help you can offer in keeping the article in line with WP's policies. Afterwriting (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I have the article on my watchlist, partly to remind myself to pare the article, and partly to watch for inappropriate changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

My post above on the Tony Nader BLP seems to have been passed over without anyone making a comment. If anyone has time to give their opinion or insights, it would be greatly appreciated. here is a link to the thread above Thanks muchly, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I know what it's like to go to all the work you did to set up your question and then have no one respond. Frustrating. So, in sympathy with your plight, I've responded above. Not what I'd call an in-depth response, but still.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding and for taking the time to contribute. Let's see if any others wish to chime in. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

page has been vandalised — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.202.192 (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It was vandalised 8 May and reverted the same minute; you're just seeing an old version. Dru of Id (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Please amend the statement about Alex Beard's mother, Patricia Beard. It now reads "Patricia Beard 'was an author..." I am Patricia Beard and I am 1. alive; and 2. continue to be an author, with eight published non-fiction books (three of which were published by HarperCollins), and a novel to be published by Simon & Schuster for summer 2013. I would appreciate your amending the mention in my son's biography! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.9.205 (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed with RS.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again, with the addition of information about Warren's possible or supposed ancestry (she was in the news). I've already asked for full protection. What's being added is totally UNDUE--note also a bogus proposal/discussion on the talk page in which a couple of jokers are trying to game the system. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Ross Porter (sportscaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is Ross Porter.

You need to make several edits on my biography.

My broadcasting career started when I was 14 years old, not 15.

The 22-inning solo broadcast occurred on August 23, 1989 in Montreal and not in Houston. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.109.24 (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for you taking the time to do some research on Wikipedia and discover that this is the correct place to bring your concerns if you are the subject of a WP article. Unfortunately we need secondary sources for this information. Anyone can post here saying they are the subject of an article and telling us to correct info. So for you protection and the accuracy of WP we require outside sources. If you know of any news or magazine articles, web site bios etc that give the correct information, please let us know, so we can accurately reflect those sources. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

WP has an article on the game 1989 Montreal Expos season... [44] appears to be RS for the facts. [45] also shows the game was at Montreal. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Pop ephemera fails notability & artist, constructed from press releases, non wp:RS & download listings. Already declined speedy A7, could an editor w/account review & AFD? PS article creator seems to have been on a tear of adding dubious vr-zone refspam & other promotional(?) editing...deserves closer attention, perhaps? regards 94.195.187.69 (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the article was a piece of poorly sourced fluff created by an editor with a history of deletions, many speedy.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elainee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

--Bbb23 (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Any relationship with this editor who has 2 articles (Porscia Yeganeh and Kevin Ou) being considered as non-notable or for deletion [46] or this person with 17 accounts? [47] Or am I just being paranoid?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It is having issues brought up by what may be a COI IP editor at the help desk. See talk page as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

This article has been newly created after a campaign by a right-wing US blogger, at http://patterico.com/2012/05/27/brett-kimberlin-gets-his-wikipedia-entry-removed/. Although not strictly a BLP, the article deals almost exclusively with one man, Brett Kimberlin. Kimberlin has had articles on Wikipedia before, all of which have been deleted due to BLP issues. This new article is being rapidly added to by a variety of new editors, and I'm keen to ensure that it stays neutral: but I don't know enough about the case to accurately judge whether or not it's neutral. Would appreciate more eyes! The Cavalry (Message me) 23:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The "Cheerleading" category used for multiple politicians was deleted at TfD. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_19

Samuel L. Jackson, Aaron Spelling, and the Bush family, among others, will have to make do with the dozens of other categories they are in

I removed the cheerleading trivia from several BLPs etc. Another editor restored them - including some really, really absurd examples.

Pages include all the Bushes, Thad Cochran, Trent Lott, Ronald Reagan etc. And dead people such as Prescott Bush and Dwight Eisenhower.

I consider this simply an extension of "silly season" since the "fact" that someone was a "cheerleader" is not of any biographical value as a rul;e, any more than we should list people who once owned red Chevys. Might others exampe those edits and opine? Collect (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you also remove all mentions of their other extra-curricular activities, such as baseball, football, basketball, chess, debate, drama, etcetera? — GabeMc (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, the "cheerleading" stuff is not as well sourced as, say, being a major football star. Strange? The entire category in which all of these "famous cheerleaders" was placed was deleted -- does that suggest how weighty such "facts" are to anyone? I think I may add "owners of red Chevys" as a category if this is deemed a serious topic that has to be covered in biographies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing all of the trivia from Wikipedia articles would be a full-time job. Would you like the assignment? Just think of how much fun it would be when you were attacked for removing facts.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a Straw poll taking place at Mitt Romney to determine consensus in regard to the question of inclusion of the Cranbrook hair-cutting incident recently reported by the Washington Post. Any input from editors would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Tony Clavier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This has been here before (see here) but the problems remain. A great deal of the content here seems to have been added by a representative of a parish caught up in a dispute/vendetta with Clavier, and the only citations are a news article behind a paywall and a court document from an opposing party. From what I can tell the center of the mess is that (a) there is a tremendous bit of bad blood between various continuing factions, and (b) there are allegations that Clavier didn't bother to respond to and which therefore hang around to be cited indefinitely as if they were proven. I'm not sure there would be anything left if I removed the problematic sources and unreffed material. Mangoe (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It is reported that racing's Townsend Bell is married to Heather Campbell. He is married to an actress named Heather Campbell, but the writer connected the name to the wrong actress. When you hit Heather Campbell's name, you are taken to a page about Heather Anne Campbell (a comedian and writer). This is not his wife. I know this family and I thought it was strange that this mistake was made so, I wanted to submit the correct information.

The correct Heather Campbell is:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0132504/

sweetypie1181 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.165.194 (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed the copyrighted text from this post. It seems someone has removed the wikilink on the BLP page already.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I have unlinked the name. An article will have to be created for the other Heather Campbell but I'm having trouble finding sources besides IMDB. P.S. Please don't copy-paste entire webpages here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have replaced the redirect to Heather Anne Campbell with a stub about this Heather Campbell, including a link to this IMDB page. Is it ok? filceolaire (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

We may need to put the 3 name one at the top of the two name page. A search for Heather Campbell only shows the actress page that I just re-named.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

And has now been AFDed. The full WP cycle. filceolaire (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it a BLP violation to challenge the reliability of a source by claiming that it is self published, as done here: [48]? – Lionel ^(talk) 02:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope. The person clearly marks it as self-published. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Talk page semi-protected.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Mark Zuckerberg (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Have requested page protection, coming here as well in hopes of getting administrative attention. Persistent trolling/vandalism by multiple accounts. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This is where we fail miserably--the endurance of BLP violations and graffiti. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed a few BLP articles with a birth date or year that has no source at all. I have removed one. What is the consensus on how to deal with these? I did try sourcing that one but to no avail.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If it has no source, then remove it if you think it's problematic -- but perhaps do a search first to see if you can find a source for it. In other words, you done good. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is a mess, consisting of an almost entirely unsourced section about his personal life, followed by one massive listing of the various controversies that he has been embroiled in. This seems to be a case of undue weight, and IPs have been occasionally blanking parts of the content. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I have now removed one section, since it was sourced almost entirely to a diatribe against Donald Sterling. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

White trash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a contention over whether referring to the surnames of families in the See also section violates WP:BLP. I would argue that by including family names, the pejorative nature of the term "White Trash" is being applied to the living members of the family (the merit of which I am not arguing) and violates NPOV and OR. If a familial group or individual's name were listed under a contemporary pejorative term or racial slur, this would be a seemingly clear-cut issue. - CompliantDrone (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• - These appear to be the names objected to - The White family - The Jukes family - The Kallikak Family - Youreallycan 18:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • were pseudonyms used by researchers in the 1920s. The families were real but not the names, and therefore no living people are named. The White Family is real and has its own article where it is described as "The family has a reputation for anti-social behavior, and, indeed, some members of the family are quite proud of it. The family, especially Jesco, is infamous in Boone County...." It seems the BLP debate should be about THAT article. Re "poorwhite trash" and the Whites see google link to newspaper report. Rjensen (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• My initial question would be, why are we adding see also links from "white trash", when there's no discussion containing the term "white trash" in any of those articles?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • It appears to be the "Kallikaks", "Jukes", and "Nams" slang names for poor families in certain parts of the U.S. that makes the association. Uncle G (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • because people interested in "white trash" will be interested in these heavily documents case studies of people who come close to the definition. Wikipedia does not call anyone "white trash." But scholars do, see White Trash: The Eugenic Family Studies (1988) by Nicole Hahn Rafter. She portrayed the family degeneracy studies that were conducted. Also: "According to Dugdale's study, a frontiersman named Max Juke married a degenerate wife and produced an astonishingly large line of “white trash." [from Willie V. Bryan (2010). Sociopolitical Aspects of Disabilities: The Social Perspectives and Political History of Disabilities and Rehabilitation in the United States. Charles C Thomas. p. 55.] Rjensen (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • That seems a defensible arguement for Jukes & Kallikak. I'd personally prefer seeing something in prose, but that's just my offhand opinion. In "The Whites", that google search link is problematic. It's showing a lot of results for "the white family" not The White Family". I'm less comfortable with that one at the moment. Just my two cents.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I agree on both points. Prose explanation beats listing in "see also" hands down. Uncle G (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I realize that Juke, Kallikak, Nams, Zero, etc. were psuedonymous surnames used by budding eugenecists, and if refs can be found I think that they should be mentioned in the body. My primary problem, is that placing a link to the The White Family (a real surname, with living people in it, not all of whom are impoverished drug-addicted Appalachians) in the See also section next to these "fictitious" names potentially violates WP:BLP. Especially with the eugenics implications. I'm not arguing the validity of whether the White Family as portrayed in the The Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia are "white trash", I'm arguing about whether they should be mentioned in passing along with research subjects from the early 19th century who were later used to justify compulsory sterilization, racial hygiene, etc. I'm also concerned about a lot of unilateral editing, ownership issues and a disinterest in consensus which seem readily apparent when one peruses recent edits. - CompliantDrone (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I have prodded The White family for deletion, as most of the material in the article is forked at Jesco White and The Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia. - CompliantDrone (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional BLP overspill

Amber L. Hollibaugh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This weakly cited low notable person has has now had a biography created to support a disputed content addition about her in the White trash article - Youreallycan

The user / creator of the BLP is now removing my templates and reverting my edits as bad faith - diff - Youreallycan 21:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

editors can read the article on Amber L. Hollibaugh and note that it is fully sourced to multiple scholarly sources, such as her books and journal articles from Duke & MIT, as well as numerous scholarly cites about her career from American Quarterly and other prestigious journals. Youreallycan has made no comments whatever on the talk page but has tried to damage and degrade the article. That's vandalism, as well as a personal attack on me (saying that I have a "conflict of interest") -- that is false and deliberately malicious. Rjensen (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
AfD (2nd nom) | RSN discussion

I have been looking through this page and it's sources and I believe that it is improperly and poorly sourced. Given the nature of the negative information and the bias towards negativity coupled with the lack of credible source I would ask for someone to have a look at this article.

Over half of the links to sources are either broken, point to original research, blogs or primary sources. It is my belief that this person may be harmed by the content and it's bias.

I nominated this article for deletion some time ago and consensus was to keep and improve, no improvement appears to have taken place, in fact it has got worse. I have just nominated it a second time. Maybe it would qualify for a speedy delete?

Also there appears to be references to this individuals family members, date of birth, ages, marriage dates etc that are not referenced due to broken links.

--Sweboi (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• The recent history gives a few clues why it's deteriorated so much. SPAs have been adding swathes of contentious negative material.
  • User:Oil.sharon stands out with additions like "However, and to no one’s surprise..." He can have a special talk page message.
  • User:Liam.UAE is another who only adds chunk after chunk of negative contentious content, using edit summaries like "reflects accuracy". I'll endeavour to be accurate in the message I leave on his talk page later, too.
• I see an IP removed lots of the poorly sourced hyper-unduly-weighted negative content, leaving an innocuous mid-sized stub. They were of course blocked. No effort was made to communicate with them using the article Talk or their user talk pages; ((uw-vandalism4)) doesn't count; meanwhile the registered editors who essentially transformed it into an attack page were left alone to do so. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Scott Kaplan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In looking at the revision history it seems that properly sourced material about Mr. Kaplan's job history has been removed by user skaplan9 on May23. This material involves lawsuits and Mr. Kaplan's removal from his previous position. They are newsworthy and should not have been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.158.60 (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged it for the lack of sources. The removed Controversy section did give undue weight to individual incidents. If something like that should be covered it needs to be done appropriately, using reliable sources. There was a single-source (actually two functionally identical ones) to the removed material, but the incidents were given rather lurid and undue focus nonetheless. I'll visit the coincidentally named user's talk page shortly. --92.6.202.54 17:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

User Skaplan9 (talk) welcomed accordingly. I get the impression from the edit history the user has forgotten their login details and created a different account once or twice (abandoning the earlier one). Importantly, there is no evidence of bad faith or concurrent use of accounts so I don't see this is a problem. As far as the disparaging remark(s) he's alleged to have made and/or his leaving the station, a brief conservatively-written and especially well-sourced mention that's free of conjecture might be reasonable. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for posting here, but there is no noticeboard in my language. The article violates the biographies of living persons policies by slandering the person with an unreliable source. I had answers from the local site administrators, but it seems they have overlooked the text in the BLP policy. I judge so by the posts in the talk page and the lack of investigation on the subject. Thank you for the time and support! Massacreto (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You might need to seek out specific editors who can work in Russian for help on this one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't speak Russian (the article is in Bulgarian and the both are not so close as they appear), I really don't know where to turn. Massacreto (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be fun, but you could start looking for currently recently-active editors in Category:User_bg, and or a post at WT:WikiProject Bulgaria --joe decker^{talk to me} 21:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Philip DeFranco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This entry is beyond poorly sourced. The sources that are listed are from his youtube video that has nothing to do with this article. Most of the references have been deleted as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.145.133 (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

Alexandra Tigchelaar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Half of this aricle is made up of an episode regarding advice on bestiality. Seems to be undue weight. 68.171.231.82 (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes its undue weight in my opinion, but what is even more disturbing is that the entire section is supported by 6 citations that consist of various editions of the subjects advice column and letters to the subject by readers of her columns. There is no outside, third party report on this "controversy". So the entire "controversy" is self generated, non notable, Original Research in my opinion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Undue weight, BLP implications, OR, several ways to approach describing the problem but it's a problem in any framing. I've removed the paragraph in question.. --joe decker^{talk to me} 21:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Keith and Joe for your assistance. I've learned a lot editing this piece. Question: I'm new to this, so I'm unsure. Is this page notable enough to warent a BLP page given that the Now and Eye contributor mentions would normally be merged in the Now and eye weekly wiki pages and the only other piece of information about her is cited with an article promoting her show? --jojopsychicpower —Preceding undated comment added 17:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've been working on the article Frank L. VanderSloot for a while, and a disagreement about how to describe his company Melaleuca, Inc has arisen. The company itself is very insistent that it does not use Multilevel marketing. Many news articles ([49][50][51]) describe it as such, although not all of them actually use that term. I don't feel like it would be appropriate to obscure the company's business practices, but the term has a lot of bad baggage, also. A couple of editors have been replacing the term, using as refs promotional sites and Youtube clips. Since it's a BLP I'm not sure how acceptable that is. I would appreciate the input of a few experienced editors.Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Main problem was polemics linking him to pedophiles etc. by association with the Boy Scouts, etc. using sources insufficient for such claims in a WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think these sources [52] and [53] are unreliable at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. Highly reliable. Why is there a whitewash going on here? Hipocrite (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Whitewash?

The claim was:

VanderSloot has also been criticized for his response to a campaign that exposed Mormon pedophiles working with children as part of the Boy Scouts of America, in which he purchased a full-page advertisement in a local paper discussing, among other things, the sexual orientation of the journalist breaking the story

Which quite seems to link Vandersloot to "Mormon pedophiles working ... as part of the Boy Scouts of America" which seems to my simple mind to be a contentious claim. Your mileage may vary. Thus the sources must be strong indeed. What are the sources? [54] a report by the newspaper which seeks to promote its own editorial position "by exposing Boy Scout pedophiles and those who failed to kick them out of the scouting program" which seems to be per se a less-than-neutral editorial commentary. Vandersloot is not claimed in that article to be supporting "Mormon pedophiles" hence the source is improperly used. His ad purportedly outed the journalist as not being unbiased in his reportage. In fact the article then turns on the writer's own "boss":

Religion, "big" money, and the conservative movement's rabid protection of local scout leaders had gotten to our boss.

In short - the rambling article about the newspaper is insufficient for the contentious claim made.

Now as to the Salon piece, from Glenn Greenwald , is likely an "editorial opinion" and not a fact on which to base a contentious claim about Vandersloot supporting "Mormon pediohiles"

VanderSloot’s chronic bullying threats to bring patently frivolous lawsuits against his political critics — magazines, journalists, and bloggers — that makes him particularly pernicious and worthy of more attention .

Now is it clear that contentious claims must have strong sourcing, and that sconnecting anyone to "Mormon pediphiles" is, indeed, a contentious claim? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I wonder which element of this sentence is in doubt. Is it

• The fact that he purchased a full-page ad discussing the sexual orientation of the journalist breaking the story?
• The nature of the campaign that journalist had embarked upon? or
• The fact that he has been criticized for this?

They may be contentious claims, but the sources are strong indeed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, these are not strong sources. What we have is a local newspaper (circulation 26,000) that is in direct dispute with the BLP subject and a psuedo-editorial by Salon (a web site that describes itself as "combining award-winning commentary and reporting"). These are not sufficient sources for contentious BLP information. In addition the current text as cited above is selective in its content and creates bias. However... I would support a neutral summary of the non-contentious information from the two sources being discussed, which I would word as follows:

• In 2005, Vanderloot challenged local news coverage of an event involving pedophiles and the Boy Scouts of American by placing 6 full page ads in the Post Register. In February 2012, Vaderloot was criticized by Glenn Greenwald of Salon, for his "chronic bullying" tactics and "frivolous lawsuits against his political critics". -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The following edit:

Vandersloot placed paid advertisements criticising articles linking child abusers with the Boy Scouts of America

Was reverted with the edit summary: that's not NPOV wording [55]. I suggest that it is, in fact, NPOV wording, and the sourcing is not sufficient in a BLP for the linking of "Mormon pedophiles" to VanderSloot . Might others consider NPOV wording where the source does appear to be problematic at best? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing remotely problematic about [56]. VanderSloot responded to a series on Mormon pedophiles working with children as part of the Boy Scouts of America by purchasing full-page advertisements in the investigating local paper criticizing the coverage and discussing, among other things, the sexual orientation of the journalist breaking the story. This is a verifiable statement. Hipocrite (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

birth year

There is a months old discussion about the birth year. 1944 or 1947. Both years are included in the article while they discuss it. I removed both until consensus is reached. An edit war is happening now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#BLP_issue. Both years are solidly sourced and there is no indication the information is contentious (other than Canoe1967's concern). Canoe1967 seems to feel we must "prove" one date is "right". Consensus on the article's talk page is that both well-sourced dates satisfy BLP sourcing requirements. (Similar issues have been addressed in other articles by citing both dates. A decision against that method would, obviously, require us to revisit those issues (Michelle Thomas, Audrey Tautou, Sharon Leal, etc... What, no guys arguing their ages? @#$%ing youth obsessed culture).) - SummerPhD (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• They may be well sourced but one is wrong. It would be the same as saying she was born in either Kansas or New York. If we can't decide on which is correct, then neither should be included. It just makes us look like we either can't do research or we can't decide which research is more correct. We can't create facts on a BLP. --Canoe1967 (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem there: it's Wikipedia policy that we don't do research of this nature, not something we should feel embarrassed about. If one source is clearly unreliable then leave it out, but when there's no clear winner just report the disagreement and let readers make informed decisions about how they'll use that information. (It might actually be useful for a reader to know that sources do disagree.)

SummerPhD, if it helps, Alan Jones (radio broadcaster) has the same issue. Jones (via Who's Who) gives his year of birth at 1943, but a biographer has suggested that the real year is more likely 1941. --GenericBob (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Much better. Now it's limited to actresses who aren't in their 20s anymore and a broadcaster in his 70s. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion has been going since 2009. Two sources are a marriage certificate and a high school grad year. I think both of those match so they should have reached consensus on that date years ago. Discounting typos, books, and news stories that may have all used the same typo source should have been figured out on day one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No, the sources cited in the article are ABC News and two published biographies. The primary sources are of no use to us. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• I can't believe how lazy some people are. I have now sent 5 emails. The ABC news is just a feed from API. They have since emailed me back with the email for API to verify their facts. I have emailed them as well as the publisher of one book, the MSN website, and Rovi. I can't believe this wasn't done over three years ago. Finding bullshit on the net, pasting a reference and moving on is not research. It just adds to more bullshit on the net.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • • I agree with GenericBob in that we just reflect reliable sources even if they are in disagreement. Emailing the sources is OK if it leads to a separate published source but private emails between WP editors and other persons (regardless of whether they are NBC employees etc) are not a basis for content.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

age and other article problems

Sondra Locke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article contains the unsourced statement "Locke, who was in her early 20s at the time, deceived the producers by stating that she was 17 and bound her breasts to be convincing for the role". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed the disputed and contentious - and added a uncited template to the whole section - Youreallycan 20:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Although the deceived and breasts bound claims would be a stretch, the NYT can verify that the producers believed she was 17. [57] Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 04:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the above: there is a blocked user who has made an appeal to ArbCom to be unblocked, which we have declined, but he is concerned about several BLPs - [58]. The above article was one, the others are Anne Heche, Natalie Wood, Catherine Deneuve, and Ann-Margret. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

gaffes

This article has a WP:UNDUE discussion of his gaffes. I can understand bringing them up, but they should not dominate the Vice Presidency section as they do now. My attempts to discuss this in talk have gone pretty much nowhere. Here is a diff: [59] William Jockusch (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I see in your comments at both the Quayle and Obama talk pages that you are trying to draw a "if article A mentions X, then Article B must mention X as well" comparison but that's not how the world works. Dan Quayle's gaffes have received a depth and breath of coverage over many, many years, while what you try to paint as "Obama gaffes" were minor events covered by a handful of sources at the time it happened, then a quick fade to obscurity. Ask the average American about "Dan Quayle and the potato/e incident" and you will get plenty of responses. Try "Obama and TOTUS" and apart from Rush Limbaugh listeners, you'll get blank stares. Tarc (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• I created Political gaffes. We may wish to expand it before deletion. If all gaffes are in one place for comparision it may balance articles of BLPs better. Did I open another can of worms?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

tagged

Dan Quayle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An editor has just tagged the section on his vice presidentcy as having undue weight on this gaffes and suggested there are BLP violations. On the talk page he says "As such the VP section is largely a BLP violation presenting undue weight on his misstatements." Outside input would be useful. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

As the section is written, eg, "His most famous blunder occurred...." it can stand the template - section needs work - imo Youreallycan 20:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed the section in issue and can see why the question could be raised. However, then I went to Google books and entered "Dan Quayle gaffes" and quite a few books about the gaffes and the term they engendered "Quaylespeak" turned up. I checked WP:NPOV/WEIGHT again. Per the relevant sentences:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and NPOV, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.

The reliable secondary source coverage of the topic does not appear isolated and the discussion in the article might not be disproportionate imo but still, it might be more appropriate to present the topic in a more summary form in this article.Coaster92 (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd visited this article before, when it used to identify Heard as a lesbian. It now doesn't identify her sexual orientation in the text, but it does by listing her in the bisexual category. It does this despite the fact that Amber Heard doesn't publicly identify as lesbian or bisexual and makes it clear that she publicly rejects these labels, which means that Wikipedia identifying her as either is a violation of WP:BLPCAT. This was brought up on the talk page and most agree that we shouldn't be labeling her if she doesn't label herself. See Talk:Amber Heard#Sexuality and Talk:Amber Heard#Bisexual label. This is not like labeling someone a "race"/ethnicity, seeing as that is more of a solid listing while sexuality and therefore applying a sexual orientation is more complicated. As was mentioned on the talk page, plenty of gay men and lesbians have had sex and/or romantic relationships with the opposite sex (in fact, most have) and it doesn't make those gay men and lesbians bisexual.

I decided to bring this issue here for a final say-so on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22, but I was shot down on the the Amber Heard talk page. Asarelah (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I would personally support putting her into the LGBT categories, but not specifically labeling her lesbian or bi. She came out at a GLAAD event, she clearly doesn't consider herself straight. Asarelah (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Does that category meet WP:BLPCAT? I think it states the category has to have certain criteria in order to add it and her article doesn't. Category:Former LGBT would be the better one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

"subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life" - quote from WP:BLPCAT.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This one is unequivocal: if the person has not self-identified in a way that justifies the category, then it should come out. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

As I stated at the talk page: Canoe1967, no, we don't have sexuality categories like that (also, most people don't truly change sexual orientation; it's rather that they change sexual identity). Further, Heard is a part of the LGBT community, as she even states in her interviews. See this one, where it was first revealed that she is a part of LGBT. It's just that she doesn't specify whether she is lesbian or bisexual. So I would say that she should stay in these categories you removed her from, although I of course agree with you removing her from the bisexual category since her sexual orientation is not specified by her. Flyer22 (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

That interview certainly does justify something in the area of LGBT. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is not important what label Heard thinks she belongs in (she says she doesn't like to label herself). What matter is whether she's self-identified in a way that permits us to label her. In 2010, she said she was a lesbian. In 2011, she said she sleeps with both sexes. It strikes me that she could therefore fit into a LGBT or a bisexual cat.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23, it's unclear as to whether she truly came out as a lesbian or whether it was just assumed that she identified as a lesbian. And she never stated that she still has sex with both sexes. She stated that she has dated both. But, like I stated, so have many gay men and lesbians. Most gay men and lesbians have had sexual interaction with the opposite sex before coming out as gay or lesbian. That's very commonplace due to our heteronormative society. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, she came out as a lesbian if one accepts the sources. It's about as clear as it can be. And she didn't say "dated" - she said "successful relationships" - again, clear enough. You just wanted to use the word "heteronormative" in a sentence. --Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23, I have to state no, we cannot state that "she came out as a lesbian, if one accepts the sources." This is because at no point in those sources...did she state that she is a lesbian. Articles titling her lesbian do not make her lesbian, unless it is clear that she identifies that way. Again, in those sources, there is no point where she specifies her sexual orientation, which is why this debate even exists. It's why posters on those sites were still asking if she is lesbian or bisexual. She was ambiguous in that 2010 AfterEllen.com source about what her sexual orientation is. So your belief that it's clear based on articles titling her lesbian is not valid. Despite the fact that she stated that she doesn't identify under these labels (not publicly at least), there are also sources calling her bisexual based on her statement about rejecting labels, having had successful relationships with men and women, and loving who she loves. So saying that she is bisexual is obviously speculation on the part of the authors, unless Heard herself states that she is bisexual or gives us something unambiguous showing that to be the case, along with showing that she accepts the label. Having had successful relationships with both men and women equates to dating in this respect (which can also include romance and sex); what it does not necessarily equate to is "bisexual." There are gay men who have stated that they had happy romantic lives with their girlfriends or wives (romantic, as in separate from sexual happiness). What is "successful" to you isn't always going to mean successful to others. Plenty would argue that any romantic relationship that doesn't last isn't successful. We go by WP:Verifiability here, but an author of an article declaring that someone is lesbian or bisexual does not trump what that someone -- the person they are speaking of -- actually says about his or her own sexual orientation. What Heard has stated is just as verifiable as what these authors have stated. That is what is clear. And, yes, maybe I did want to use "heteronormative" in a sentence, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." From BLP CAT. She has indentified as not being in the categories so they should not be re-added. They are also not relevant to her public life or notability. Wikipedia is not a tabloid.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• She has identified as being a lesbian and being bisexual - she doesn't have to use the word "bisexual" to identify as such. As for the relevance to her public life or notability, she attended the GLAAD event and that's probably more than we usually have to satisfy that prong (in practice, for better or for worse, it's almost always ignored).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Like I stated before, it's not clear if she publicly ever identified as either. You won't find a reliable source where she identifies either. What you will find are authors of articles titling her lesbian or bisexual.

And, Canoe1967, I know what WP:BLPCAT states. But I am saying that Heard rejecting specific sexual orientation labels does not make her not a part of the LGBT community. She came out as part of the LGBT community in 2010, as the source I provided shows, and she has not retracted on that. The fact is...she came out as part of the LGBT community while never specifically stating whether she is bisexual or lesbian. If she did specify as lesbian at that GLAAD event, as sources say she did, she soon only referred to herself as "coming out." This is why Asarelah, Siawase (see here) and myself have stated that it is fine to put her in the LGBT category. She also considers herself a LGBT role model, someone who can help LGBT visibility, which makes her sexual orientation relevant to her public life. I'm not going to press hard to have her in the LGBT category, however. I'm just letting you know why I believe that she fits in that one with regard to WP:BLPCAT. Also, Canoe1967, could we keep this discussion in one place instead of repeating ourselves in both places? Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say at this point to place Heard in the LGBT categories - she's not clearly identified precisely how she sees herself (whether lesbian or bisexual), but we do have clear support for placing her in the larger LGBT area. Tabercil (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

What Tabercil said.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Tabercil. That is what I've been stating. Flyer22 (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

BLPCAT could not be more clear. She must have explicitly identified as the orientation and it must be relevant to her notability. Heard fails on both counts. Adding the LGBT cat is against policy.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Lionelt, I can't add too much more about why Heard should be placed in the LGBT category that wouldn't be redundant. She has explicitly identified as being a part of the LGBT community. One does not have to identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to be a part of the LGBT community. Some people, for example, identify as pansexual and assert that it is different than bisexuality, but are still a part of the LGBT community. Others identify as non-heterosexual or genderqueer or don't go by any specific label, but are still a part of the LGBT community. Being "non-heterosexual," a term that is used fairly well in scholarly fields, automatically makes that person a part of the LGBT category by default (unless they are an asexual who experiences neither romantic nor sexual attraction). If BLPCAT were as clear as you think it is with regard to the LGBT category, general consensus would not be to place her in it. It identifies her as being a part of the LGBT community, which is backed by her words, without going against her wish to not have a specific sexual orientation label placed on her. Flyer22 (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've also noted how her being an out actor is "relevant to [her] public life or notability" (notice that policy says "or"; one or the other). Heard sees herself as representing LGBT visibility. Besides that, any time an actor comes out in Hollywood, it becomes a part of their notability...because sources consistently write about their having come out (as they do in Heard's case). Flyer22 (talk) 06:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Michael Lissack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bbb23 refuses to allow mention of Lissack's two books. He wrote them. They are properly sourced. They are relevant to his present academic career. Bbb23 just does not like anything positive re Lissack to go on his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.148.130 (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

In your prev edits you added some other unsourced material and it can't be reinserted without a reliable source. You could reference his having written the 2 books to his own website (lissack.com). It's a self-published source which means there are limitations on how it can be used, but I'd say it's okay for that. Coverage in "Publishers Weekly" or similar is an alternative. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added a mention of the books to the article and commented on the Talk page. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is it okay to cite to a self-published source for the books? If I say I wrote a book, how is that not self-serving? It needs a secondary source. In addition, there needs to be something about the books that makes them noteworthy, which can only come from a secondary source. I'll leave your edit alone for the time being, though, to see if others have comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't think it's warranted to mention an author's books that were published by a legit. non-vanity publishing house in their bio? The only claim is that he wrote or co-wrote a couple of books. I don't see it's unduly self-serving. If the claim was the books were pivotal to human development or wonderfully written then sure it would be. Notability of the person is already established through secondary sources. If we were talking about standalone articles for the books it'd be a different matter, but this is a very brief mention in the bio. The earlier book seems to be cited independently a fair amount according to googlescholar, incidentally. Like I said better sources such as Publishers Weekly and the like were alternatives, but it really doesn't strike me as anything extraordinary we're saying here. Still, since some editors have reported difficulties accessing the site, I've now added references to The Independent and The New York Times. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

My preference generally but specifically with authors is not to list all their works unless there's something noteworthy about that particular work. Anything that is in a Wikipedia article has to be sufficiently noteworthy to be included. Carried to an extreme, if an author wrote 3,000 books, it would be ludicrous to list them all. But, conceptually, the same thing applies even if the author wrote only 10 books. A better place to refer to the "list" of the works is through external links and something like WorldCat. Otherwise, the article becomes just a resume.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

William Rathje died Friday. The best source I can find for this so far is [60]. Only a blog, but Shanks is a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I wasn't able to find a better source either so far. Even arizona.edu, where he was emeritus professor, or stanford.edu where he'd been listed as affiliate Faculty didn't have a news item. Another postdoc researcher Johan Normark blogged about it & Bob Muckle an anthro at CapilanoU mentioned it on his Twitter, but that's all I found. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Brett Kimberlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A group of anonymous editors and new accounts are repeatedly and insistently adding poorly-sourced negative material to the Brett Kimberlin article. They are doing so at the behest of a group of right-wing bloggers who are targeting the subject of the article. The subject is an enthusiastic lawyer and has sued several critics, so I suggest that administrators remove the poorly-sourced material and lock down the page. — goethean ॐ 16:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact, since the poorly-sourced material accuses the subject of a crime, I suggest that the material be permanently nuked. — goethean ॐ 17:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you be a little clearer as to the material you want removed and what crime you are referring to? Also, which accounts are you accusing of editing the article "at the behest", etc.?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Right-wing weblogs have been declaring "Everybody blog about Brett Kimberlin" day.[61] Suddenly multiple IP users appear at the article, adding material cited to these blogs. I presume that these events are connected. — goethean ॐ 19:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Search on the term "murder" at this diff: [62] — goethean ॐ 19:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

More diffs: [63][64][65][66][67][68] — goethean ॐ 19:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much. I've reedited the Blog Day section, which, currently, is based on only one source. It wasn't compliant with that one source. I've also folded the Blog Day section into the litigation section to give it less prominence. Besides, it appears to naturally fit within that section.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

As far is CU is concerned, these accounts are not socks. Tiptoety ^talk 21:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

But perhaps there's a whiff of abattoir... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for 2 weeks due to BLP concerns. I will leave to others to filter out the wheat from the chaff here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Arjun Sarja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The biography of Arjun Sarja has been modified with vile. Would request someone from Tamilnadu to take up to correct the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niranwiki (talk • contribs) 18:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I warned the violating IP 17.196.161.174 address - diff - and watchlisted the biography.Youreallycan 19:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Moni Aizik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I added new sources the demonstrate that facts that our enemies try to publish false information and lies about Moni Aizik. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noam.kamil (talk • contribs) 20:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Your comment, not to mention your edits to the article, is preposterous.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Links fixed.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Gustavus Simmons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A couple of the links in the References seem to be dead and one has been changed by the University of New Mexico who hosts it, but an attempt to edit them to insert live or corrected links fails to open the references list so editing can be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnemonic7 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I found three problem links in the article. One I marked as dead. One I fixed completely. The third I fixed, although I don't think it's as good as the original. I don't understand what you mean by the last part of your post ("an attempt to ...").--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the problem links. I obviously didn't. and still don't, know how to do it. All that matters is that they are working. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnemonic7 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay. 92.6.202.54 also fixed one of them.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Eric Golub Removed contentious, poorly sourced, potentially libelous material in a section titled "Public Reception."Observation Station (talk) 04:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If those sources are all that's available to source an article on this person, then this one is headed to AfD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The subject is a blogger who has angered some Ron Paul supporters by writing unfavorably about Dr. Paul. Observation Station (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Tony Shipley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

[69] restored material sourced to non-verifiable (404 error) pages, and appears to be written as a political campaign ad. I suggest and request that others review that material, and my attempt at using NPOV to present the controversy fairly. Thanks. Collect (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I checked a couple of links and didn't get 404 errors. Looks to me like you're engaging in large-scale deletion of sourced material. If there are more specific problems, address them at a more detailed level. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Check more. Also the wording was less than neutral by any standards. Cheers.

In the Tennessee General Assembly press room, Shipley has become known as "Captain Apocalypse" for his insistence that the proliferation of LGBT rights will incur catastrophic divine wrath

Shipley was also accused of secessionist rhetoric for his reported statement

According to a children's rights advocate, Representative Shipley claimed that "They can do whatever they want out in California, with gays passing babies around, and violating God's law

Rep. Shipley has been criticized for his district mailing racially-charged fliers against his African-American general election opponent and perceived fear-mongering during both the 2008 and 2010 Tennessee election seasons

Self-Described "Statesman" Suggests Bodily Harm Directed Toward Felllow Republican

Etc. do not seem to me to be other than attempts to turn Wikipedia into a campaign pamphlet. YMMV. And I note you consider these "charges" to be "well-sourced" per WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If you want help at BLPN, give people the information they will need to help you. For example, the particular links that come up as 404. I'm not going to check every single one, particularly after the few that I check are fine. Given that there are sources (regular ones, newspaper-like), your edits do look like vandalism (as per the edit summary of the other editor there). I don't see you trying to use NPOV to present the controversy fairly -- I only see you doing large-scale section-blanking. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You are asserting that seeking NPOV is "vandalism"? And you defend charging a person with promoting a crime with allegations not sufficient for any BLP I have ever seen? Amazing! Collect (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I am saying that your first post here didn't provide a basis for people to help you: the problem seemed to be dead links (itself not even a basis for removing material) when in fact most of the links seem not to be dead. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

[70], 404. Mashhvillescene = blog entries without sign of being fact-checked. [71] does not even mention the person. [72] ditto. Using sources which do not even mention the person for whom a claim is made is just how valid a source? [73] does not mention Shipley at all. [74] not found. In short - either not RS opr not even mentioning the person at all. The main source is "nashville scene" blogs which are not RS by a mile for contentious claims about a living person. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

[75], [76], [77], [78] -- not 404, not blogs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

And the concept of UNDUE apllies here as well for the rimesnews cite that someone said a proposal would be unconstitutional is of what weight in a BLP? MEanwhile, I commend people to read the nashvillescene "pith" blogs to see how well they can be used for contentious claims about a living person. I suggest they are not written to journalistic fact standards at all, but with strong points of view, and can not be used for "contentious claims." Such as urging bodily harm on a person. YMMV. Collect (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The first one is an interview with Shipley. No reason to doubt that he said the things he is reported to have said. The threat of bodily harm comes in the third one; again, no reason to doubt that he said he was going to crack Kelsey's head. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry -- "No reason to doubt" a contentious claim is not how WP:RS and WP:BLP operate. My edits left in criticism of the person - as supported by clear wording in reliable sources. That is what we are supposed to do. Even durig political 'silly season." Collect (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

User 188.29.207.81 has inserted a 'criticisms' section into this BLP article, in which the subject's honesty is questioned and some kind of fraud on the subject's part is implied. User's source is a (tiny) minority viewpoint put forward in a 2011 book 'Moonwalking with Einstein' by Joshua Foer (whose book and viewpoint are already mentioned in the article using wording agreed by non-anonymous editor consensus). No reliable published secondary source has picked up on Foer's claims, except in a New York Times review (which criticised Foer's stance concerning the subject, without mentioning any specifics). In fact, I cannot find a single reliable published secondary source that mentions any 'criticism' of the subject.

The user's edits are controversial, poorly-sourced, and defamatory. Moreover, they would seem to fall under Wiki's definition of 'original research'.

The user has a long pattern of repeatedly (re)inserting poorly-sourced and defamatory edits to this article without seeking consensus (often ignoring previously established consensus among non-anonymous Wiki editors), and of edit warring. Talk page discussions go nowhere.

In keeping with Wiki guidelines for BLP articles, I have immediately removed the potentially defamatory and poorly-sourced edits from this BLP article.

Please take whatever editorial action is necessary to prevent an umpteenth pointless edit war.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Misleading. Falsely characterised. The body of the edit was originally authored by User Saunders. Later, IP user supported and restored edit. Note, Foer made several criticisms in his book. Only "one" criticicm was previously debated and vaguely edited in - mention of possible use of mnemonic techniques. User Saunders added a quote and two "different" criticisms both from Foer's book. Verifiable and well-sourced primary and secondary sources were supplied. See User Saunders statement in talk page. 194.238.70.70 (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What are the reliable published sources besides the Foer book? Oughtprice99 (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN rule states "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." (my emphasis)

Oughtprice99 (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• - Yes - its undue, opinionated and imo attacking content that is repeatedly being added by the same user (or a couple of users , some connection is to a web forum) under different IP addresses. As it is a repeat attack pattern I recently requested indefinite semi protection at the noticeboard but was refused. If a couple of experianced users can watchlist for weak cited/primary cited content undue critical content related to Foers opinions that the subject is a fake/etc that would be great. Youreallycan 15:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Stick to content issues only. Foer's criticisms satisfy notability and relevance requirements. Foer's book covers several pages on Tammet and therefore appears well-documented. Tammet makes several contributions on pages 188-194 approximately. The latest edit by User Saunders captures the essence of Foer's notable opinions. Perhaps use of more direct quotes would be better?

This report is in response to recent edits (e.g., [79], [80]) on the article for Chip Rogers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a US state-level politician. Apparently there's been a lot of news recently alleging a prior career in sports handicapping that has raised some hackles. I'm signing off for the day, so hopefully others can keep an eye on this and perhaps do some quality citation. Thanks, — Scientizzle 13:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Contentious claims require strong sourcing. Meanwhile, claims about him getting lobbyist gifts were in accurately reflected - the claims are now accurate per the source given (that he did not seek gifts, and that he has now returned gifts). Collect (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Edited by both Dweller and me. Re-open if any further concerns. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Talk:Dale Farm#Who Is Grattan Puxon ? is problematic. However, I have (and am proud to have) a clear conflict of interest on this topic, so I thought I'd better bring it here. – hysteria18 (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Fixed (vandalism-blanking also reverted), thank you. Dates now match his official site/FB-linked from there; removed middle name, it can be added if a source is found. 92.6.202.54 (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

In the information box on the Conor Maynard, I believe it says 20th of November instead of 21st, small error as its written correctly down below. Also I believe that his middle name is "Paul" and not "Pablo". That's all :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahgray311 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sid Rosenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can somebody have a look at the "Sid Rosenberg" page please? I noticed it while adding wikilinks to the article above on "Scott Kaplan", with whom Sid Rosenberg worked. The rumours of his demise are greatly exaggerated and I think it gets worse as you go down the page. I have to go do some errands or I'd start on it myself. Thanks. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Did some cleanups and it's better than it was. It no longer implies he's dead for one. Anyone else is welcome to continue on it. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Has been "deleted by redirect" [‎http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_A._Bellesiles&curid=2063211&action=history] repeatedly despite the issue of "concensus" being raised that he is BLP1E and should not have an article. I have suggested that this issue (BLP1E) is one which should be raised at AfD and not used as a blanket reason to delete by redirect. I suggest that he is notable as an author of more than one book reviewed by newspapers (including the NYT), and also meets the academic notabiity standards (professor with multiple peer-reviewed articles). I suggest "BLP1E" would only apply if he did not meet such standards - but that since he meets both, that it can not be used as a reason for this deletion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC) I also note the "consensus" is a 3 - 2 "consensus. Collect (talk) 07:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Bellesiles' notability derives from the book Arming America, which he published to great acclaim but which was subsequently found to contain misleading and unprofessional scholarship. It was a pretty big scandal, and it's covered in great detail at Arming America. Since Bellesiles is notable in the context of this scandal, and since independent reliable sources have little to say about him outside of this particular scandal, there appears (in my view) to be a consensus at the talkpage to redirect Michael A. Bellesiles to Arming America, per WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E.

  Discussion of this issue has been extensive; in fact, it was discussed on this very noticeboard about two weeks ago. Since Collect has neglected to link to previous discussions, here are some potentially useful links:

  • Michael A. Bellesiles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Arming America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • BLP/N thread from two weeks ago which concluded with a decision to redirect the article
  • Current talkpage discussion thread, in which consensus appears to support a redirect
• I think the last link - to the talk page discussion - demonstrates that editors are making an effort to reason with Collect, or at least make sense of his objections, but they are a moving target and we seem to be talking past each other. MastCell ^Talk 07:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I subnit that consensus was not so reached, that Bellesiles is not BLP1E, that he has multiple books reviewed in such minor places as the NYT, that he also meets the academic notability standards as a professor with multiple peer-reviewed articles, etc. Further that I sought to remove improper material attacking him from the BLP, and that I added material which treats him favourably. [81] Nor do I regard anything other than an AfD as being the proper means to remove the content of an article from Wikipedia.

    Further that on 15 May MastCell made this edit: [82] with the specific comment (Collect's version is much closer to where we should be; see discussion at WP:BLP/N) thus showing you knew my position as of 15 May. The idea that my position on 15 May was somehow a mystery is belied. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

    • You're wrong. AFD is for getting an administrator to hit the delete button, removing the article and all of its edit history from view. There's no such thing as "deletion by redirect". Redirects are enacted with the edit tool, aren't limited to administrators, don't involve the administrator deletion tool, don't remove the edit history, and aren't within the remit of Articles for deletion. Don't send things to AFD where no-one including yourself wants the deletion button pressed. I will speedily chuck such a nomination out (unless I'm beaten to it). The article's talk page is for discussion of mergers, redirects, and all of the things that are done to the article with the edit tool. (And this noticeboard, WikiProject talk pages, and RFC are ways of obtaining more editors' opinions in such a talk page discussion.) The delete button is not the only way to address notability issues, as has already been pointed out. Uncle G (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Making a page not visible to ordinary readers is, IMO, a "deletion." The entire page content was removed. The rationales were: the person is not nottable (shown errant), that this is a simple case of BLP1E (shown errant) and that is done per consensus (now shown to be errant). Might you tell us why the redirect is proper, please? Collect (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Come now! You've been around for six years at least. You've seen what an actual deletion with the deletion tool looks like. Your opinion is wrong. A redirect is not a deletion; it isn't enacted with the deletion tool; and "ordinary readers" can see the edit history just fine. You should know these basics of the writing tool that we're all using by now. Uncle G (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
          • And you should recognize that using a redirect to accomplish the same net result to outside users is the equivalent of a deletion. Especially since it consists of the entire removal of the article content. Pointing out that an admin deletion also removes the history is not relevant when the purpose of the deletion of the entire article content suffices as far as anyone seeking to read about the person is concerned. Cheers - but saying "well - technically deletion of the entire content is not really 'deletion'" is non-utile here since my point was fairly clear to everyone else. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
            • No, it does not accomplish the same result. I've already explained why. Twice. And you should know why already, as this is basic using-our-writing-tool stuff. Moreover: Far from your point being clear, it was already explained to you by MastCell as incorrect on the talk page. Now get a grip and stop mischaracterizing things as deletions when you know that they are not, and stop wrongly claiming Articles for deletion as the "proper means" for something that is not deletion. Such histrionics about how "It's all been deleted!" when it patently hasn't been, ever, and obstructionist refusal to recognize the article's talk page as a proper venue for discussing whether the article should be a redirect or not should be beneath you. Uncle G (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
              • I explained my use of ordinary English. I think that is sufficient. It is not arcane. The content was deleted and ordinary English would say that a page with no content has had that content "deleted." . Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
                • You didn't use ordinary English. "redirect" isn't ordinary English. It's a term of art for people who use our writing tool. So is "delete" uttered in the very same breath. The simple truth is that you indulged in histrionics and obstructionism. To believe otherwise would be to believe that after six years you still haven't grasped even the very basics of the writing tool, what a deleted page looks like, the very different appearance of a redirected page, and how to tell the one from the other. Even people who aren't involved in the project are capable of that. I really did think that this sort of thing was beneath you. It sadly looks like it's not, and that you are playing games as MastCell said. Which is a shame, because if you hadn't been as foolish as this, you might had actually talked people around. Instead, you've managed to convince them to ignore you as a silly game-player. Uncle G (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Now we're going in circles here instead of on the article Talk page. A couple of guidelines may be helpful to resolve this. First, WP:RNEUTRAL states, "Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated". Second, WP:RFD states, "RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted at a different article, discuss it on the talk pages of the current target article and/or the proposed target article." Although it goes on to state that RfD can be used to centralize a discussion on more difficult cases, the fact that two discussions are going on, one at the Bellesiles Talk page and one here, is more than sufficient for this redirect. I think Collect should let go. He can continue to believe whatever he wants, but there is a consensus for the redirect, and he needs to abide by it, even if he dislikes it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbb23 (talk • contribs)
  • OK unsigned, -- first off the reason was BLP1E - now the reason is it has suddenly become a POV fork? Since the extraneous material about Arming America was removed by me and others from the BLP, the claim of BLP fork fails. Sorry -- this looks like alphabetically going down eevery possible reason for deleting material which is properly sourced, is not defamatory of a living person, and is not duplicative of another article (required to be a POV fork). Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – RFC closed, consensus to remove

Matt Lucas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject has requested we remove from the biography a comment about his former partner's death, something which took place after their relationship ended. An RfC on the topic has been opened. As the strict policy issues here may be perceived as something of a grey area, I would encourage editors with BLP expertise to cast an eye over it. --Dweller (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It's preposterous that we need an RfC to accomplish this, it should be done immediately with no further discussion. The article is about Matt Lucas, and the death of a former partner well after the relationship ended is not relevant here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done in this edit, though I have no doubt it will be restored.--ukexpat (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Surely there is a human interest aspect to this and may have insight into their relationship. This incident was not long after they separated, as is being suggested, just a few months. Nasnema  Chat  20:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

(←) Left AN note asking it be reviewed for close; it's been open since 23 May. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Steffon Bradford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

some one has stolen my son identity! this information is true at all.. how did a nation wide site like this can allow this to happen. Steffon bradford is married to aaron on 09/04/2010 on omaha, nebraska isn't real information at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Provide321 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed the offending sentence. It was unsupported by what few sources the article has. It was the sole edit by an IP a few months ago. Probably just vandalism. Grayfell (talk) 07:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it was included at page creation and removed by User:The-Pope, then restored by the IP. While there's nothing to indicate it's the same person, a Steffon T. Bradford (whose age is proximate) marrying Erica Aaron has two online matches, The Douglas County Clerk's office in Omaha, Nebraska and omaha.com. Dru of Id (talk) 09:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Good catch, I stand corrected. Grayfell (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Luka Magnotta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Large tracts of BLP violating speculation relating to a murder suspect, much of it based on tabloid gossip, also anonymous 3rd parties. While I appreciate that this is a very interesting set of events, editors are not showing restraint and [are instead] adding every salacious tidbit, such as claims about the suspect's sexual performance, gossip from people claiming to have been his ex-lovers, an anonymous guy from Craig's List, etc etc. Also overstepping the line re innocent until proven guilty and stating that he has committed previous crimes and posted videos to the internet showing them, and has been "identified" as the killer by the users of a trashy website. To defend the inclusion, one editor has said "The National Post is a reliable source. Please do not delete material based on one's personal opinion of the subject matter." I don't have a personal opinion of the subject matter, but I can still see that BLP is not being adhered to in this article. GwenChan 15:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a quite large trove of reliable sources on this matter. For example, USA Today cited the police:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-06-01/Chinese-victim-body-parts-murder/55328662/1

"Police suspect Magnotta filmed the murder. The video, posted online, shows a man stabbing another man with an ice pick while the victim lies naked and tied up. The first man later reveals he has slashed the other man's throat. He also dismembers the corpse and performs sexual acts with it.

'We have quite convincing proof of the crime he committed,' Lafreniere said Friday, referring to the video.

While we should be careful of using less reputable sources, there is are much reliable source citations for some of the material...for example, the existence of the "snuff film". When the police say "We have quite convincing proof" and USA Today says that this refers to the video, that's something that can be included.Ryoung122 16:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I agree that the claims of "incest" and things like that need not be included. However, when you delete a huge amount of material all at once, this leads to confusion. It is best to deal with one issue at a time, rather than "throwing the baby out with the bath water".Ryoung122 16:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I see valid sources being removed from this article, along with substantial amounts of sourced content. The Xtra! papers, while printed for local free-circulation monthly or semi-monthly, are not "tabloids" in the class of the (paid-circulation) National Enquirer and Sun. Most of what is being removed is sourced from mainstream news outlets so it might be worth keeping an eye on some of the content deletion in case it goes a little too far. As for previous crimes? There is a criminal conviction in Ontario for fraud involving a spending spree with a stolen AmEx card, so on this at least one can stop using the word alleged as he has had his day in an Ontario court. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Beyond Vaudeville was a cable TV shows which seems to have existed to make fun of eccentric New Yorkers. The article has a list of people who are supposed to have appeared on it, which is completely unsupported by any kind of reference. I would have said that this list is in itself a BLP violation, if not an outright hoax, and in addition some of the individual descriptions are certainly violations. Unfortunately one editor is edit warring to keep this stuff in the article [83], [84], and to shut down discussion on the talk page [85] and on this page [86], [87] (NB: edit summaries are not correct). I don't know why he is so determined to keep this massive BLP violation in the encyclopedia. Anyway, some independent views would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.101.172 (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC) trolling ipsock of banned editor Echigo mole

• Well, I don't want to comment on the editor and their nose for sniffing things out, but I do believe the list has no place here. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• Is the show actually notable on its own? AFAICT it is mentioned in the NYT only because of Oddville, MTV into which it is a really good merge candidate. Collect (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I got the same idea after looking at three of the four references. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Done. Well, redirected. The sources are on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: This section was added three times by trolling socks of community banned editor Echigo mole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Irrespective of the merits of this article (which they have edited on and off for a number of years and on which I have no view at all), this disruptive troll has posted three times on this page. First using the above IP range, preferred since December 2011 by Echigo mole.[88] Then as a now indefinitely blocked sockpuppet of Echigo mole, Rita Mordio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).[89] And now as another ipsock in the range, Echigo mole is not an honest person and his goal is to make mischief on wikipedia. The series of articles that Drmies just deleted elsewhere (thanks!) seems to be part of that general pattern of mischief-making. Mathsci (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• This article is also gone--well, redirected. Those hoaxes, them was pretty bad. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)