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

Desireé Cousteau

There's a current RFC that a porn actor's non-voluntarily disclosed identity and a misdemeanor charge should be cited in the lead. There's some BLP arguments that need addressing by experienced editors, including suggestions that someone who was in the porn industry forfeits other expectations of privacy; whether it's important whether we know if the subject is alive; whether long-standing material should be considered BLP-safe because the subject hasn't personally contacted us to complain; as well as other interesting arguments. The editor's have decided to leave the BLP-questioned material in the article during the RFC, which seems off to me.__ E L A Q U E A T E 23:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

BLP-questioned material comes out of an article pending discussion and consensus. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This is what is being discussed. I see there is a claim of consensus in the edit summary but it also looks like it's saying the material should stay in while it's being discussed in the form of an RFC.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, NYB, looking through it in more detail, I don't see a clear or explicit consensus to re-introduce the material removed on a BLP referenced diff, so I'll remove it until the RFC works out whether it's compliant. You can let me know if it looks right to you.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

A) It seems some question if she is living, so under the BLP rules we assume she is alive until sources say otherwise. B) What exactly is an alias? Is that supposed to be her birth name, another stage name? If it is her birth name, it is germane to the article. I'm assuming that this is well sourced, but she appears to be a well known celebrity in her chosen field, so it probably exists. I hardly find this contentious. Or is there more information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs)

The citation is the Associated Press reporting nationally on a public-information arrest report. She was arrested while doing promotion for one of her films, and in the standard course of an arrest provided ID. Some editors are suggesting, with no evidence whatsoever but only their POV, that that she lied to police or falsified her ID. This AP report of public information is WP:RS WP:VERIFY that meets WP:BLP standards. Unless the AP reporting public-record information is somehow not RS. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Desireé Cousteau report

An ongoing RfC at Talk:Desireé Cousteau#Request for comment is not going well for the requester, so that editor has resolved to maintain the BLP violation in the article before the issue has been resolved. Editor Tenebrae is unwilling to comply with BLP policy, which indicates that a potential violation should be removed until and unless there is a consensus to return the content to the article. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- It is only this editor's opinion I am "unwilling to comply with BLP": The citation is the Associated Press reporting nationally on a public figure's public-information arrest report. She was arrested while doing promotion for one of her films, and in the standard course of an arrest provided ID. This editor has suggested, with no evidence whatsoever but only his POV, that that she lied to police or falsified her ID. This AP report of public information is WP:RS verification that meets WP:BLP standards. Unless the AP reporting public-record information is somehow not RS. A misdemeanor arrest in the course of her public duties promoting her film is not contentious or a "violation". --Tenebrae (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  - The source is not being used for the arrest, just for the "other" name, which is given undue weight by its inclusion in the lead of the article. It is an alias among several likely other names used by the subject. In any case, it is contentious material and should not be used in the article at least until the RfC issue has been resolved. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 18:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I've just commented at the RfC [1], and I encourage other BLPN regulars to have a look at the discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Laurence S. Cutler

This article Laurence S. Cutler, an article on his wife Judy Goffman Cutler, and another on their museum National Museum of American Illustration are clearly promotional materials. They exclusively cite their own websites and use extremely positive language (completely lacking neutrality). They are also far more detailed the subject matters merit. I believe they violate both the NPOV and V provisions of living biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Please Let's Not (talk • contribs) 01:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The article on the museum doesn't seem overtly promotional - it describes the museum in a rather positive tone, but given the fact that it's a museum... I'm not sure there's any reason to expect there to be "balance" in an article about an art museum. Is there someone significant who is *opposed* to the art museum? Also, a museum isn't a BLP.

If you think the biographies are overtly promotional, feel free to be bold and edit them to be less-so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit: I see now that you tried, but were reverted by an anti-vandal bot. It helps when you make large removals of content to explain in the edit summary what you are doing and why - if you do not use the edit summary or make a post on the article Talk page when removing a lot of text, some may assume vandalous or inadvertent action. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I'm a newbie. The issue with the museum is that the entry is used to promote their private gallery. I had more success cleaning up the promotional aspects of their biographies today, but the majority of the sources touting the importance of the couple and their museum are self-published. Isn't that a no-no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Please Let's Not (talk • contribs) 18:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Your instincts are basically sound, so feel free to keep hacking away. Slow and steady is better than trying to achieve everything in one go. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The two personal pages have now been cut right back and I think they are fine. The museum page is arguably slightly over promotional, but like NorthBySouthBaranof I don't really see a problem with that. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Paul Weston (politician)

The user 66.185.200.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding unsuitable material to Paul Weston (politician) over the course of about a week or so, despite having been advised that adding contentious material self-published by the subject of the article is not usable unless backed up by a reliable source, per WP:BLPSELFPUB. Myself and a few other editors have been trying to improve the article by adding reliable sources and discussing changes as suggested by WP:EDITWAR, but the IP user keeps coming back and restoring their preferred content. They are being careful to time their edits and make slight changes so as to avoid 3RR so I've brought the notice to this board rather than the 3RR noticeboard.

This diff typifies the user's preferred revision, which contains statements sourced only to the subject's political organization. When the inappropriate material is trimmed, the user adds it back, plus once more including personal attack in edit summary, and then once again just now (the most recent version as of this submission). Another user who has been involved in editing this article started a discussion in talk to highlight policy and work toward consensus on article content, but the user is choosing to simply assert their interpretation of policy rather than participate in the discussion.

Full disclosure: I had asked for the article to be semiprotected a few days ago when the IP first started to be problematic, which was declined. I've already reverted the user's edits a few times and I acknowledge that my interpretation of the BLP policy may not be perfect, so I'm here to ask other editors to review and provide input. Thanks. Ivanvector (talk) 04:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Tarun Tejpal

Tarun Tejpal was freed on bail by the supreme court for three weeks on his mothers death

Tejpal is still in prison, the bail granted is interim for a few weeks,[2] so I'm not sure if there is a need to update the article. Cwobeel (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Mark Selbee

Please refer to the link provided. Mark was not from Atlanta, Georgia but was born and raised in Topeka,KS http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/atlanta/obituary.aspx?page=lifestory&pid=171145176

Corrected, thanks. Cwobeel (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra

An editor is requesting input on Deepak Chopra, [3], a BLP. More input is welcome.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC))

If you have a specific BLP violation issue, please state it here, otherwise engage in discussions with other editors in talk. Cwobeel (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Another editor is asking for input on the talk page. I am asking for those interested in BLP issues to join that discussion. BLP /NB is not limited to the simplicity of a specific issue. Further the article has become contentious so uninvolved input can be helpful. Anyone interested is welcome to join the discussion. Thanks.(Littleolive oil (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC))

Shael Polakow-Suransky

Edit war has been occurring on the page for almost a month, with no discussion, apparently with the subject of the article or someone close to him as one of the principals. On top of that, both versions being fought over are bloated for a relatively minor local figure in public education. In any case, is this the right page to report this? Jd2718 (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed unsourced content, tagged accordingly, and watchlisted it. Cwobeel (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Rajeev Chandrasekhar

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

This concerns an Indian politician where there have been past attempts to puff up the article, but where now there are efforts to balance that with negativity. The latest edit (diff) adds "known more for his wealth...accused of committing fraud". I recently removed some undue stuff, and removed some puffery at the same time, although I see I did not trim it enough. Help or semiprotection is needed.

I will put a note on the article talk pointing to this report, and for the benefit of any new editors I will explain that biographies of living people must comply with the standard requirements that all material is verifiable from reliable sources, and text must be neutral and "due". Generally, an article would record a conviction, but articles generally do not mention claims of wrongdoing. If such a claim were made, it would have to be attributed, such as "X wrote that Y is bad due to Z". However, most politicians and many prominent people have critics who make all sorts of claims, but there is no reasonable way to assess which claims should be in a biographical article. Accordingly there is a strong tendency for Wikipedia to stick to facts—what organizations a person belongs to, what awards they have received, what significant work they have accomplished, or what convictions they have received. Johnuniq (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

CGP Grey

Several edits recently to article adding real name of article subject, which subject has requested remain anonymous (see Talk:CGP Grey#Name). Not reporting any individual user (right now), but should page be protected while this is sorted out? --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Chloe Lang

Not sure if this is the right place, but this article on an author named Chloe Lang is linked to the role of Stephanie on Lazytown which is currently played by the child actor Chloe Lourenco Lang. Not sure if it was an error, misunderstanding, or blatant plug for the author to pull in some views.

Author is non-notable, worthy of speedy deletion, and we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chloe Lang. Redirected to Stephanie (LazyTown) per AFD results, and watchlisted. Cwobeel (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

14th Dalai Lama

Supporters of an "angry and vengeful spirit" of Tibetan Buddhism called Dorje Shugden have been protesting against the current Dalai Lama, who has been critical of this group. We have several articles about the issue including Dorje Shugden controversy and New Kadampa Tradition. SPA editors affiliated with this movement are trying to insert lengthy tendentious sections about the controversy into the BLP 14th Dalai Lama, which in my opinion, gives undue weight to the criticisms of a splinter group. Attention by uninvolved editors would be appreciated. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Cullen328. The material should NOT be included.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 04:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Piketty

Currently has:

According to Rich Miller of Bloomberg News, Chris Giles of the Financial Times said the book relies on "transcription errors, unexplained statistical modifications and “cherry picking” of sources". “Some issues concern sourcing and definitional problems,” Giles said. “Some numbers appear simply to be constructed out of thin air.” Piketty responded by saying he had to adjust statistics from a diverse set of data. < ref>Piketty Book on Inequality Has Errors, Financial Times Says Rich Miller; Bloomberg News, 23 May 2014.< /ref>

sourced directly to Bloomberg News and indirectly to Financial Times, each of which outght to be RS for the quite bland material added. The issue has made all the major wire services here, and the wording makes no claims at all in Wikipedia's voice which should be contentious. However, there appears to be a belief that the section on the book ought to have no remotely negative comments therein. Ought a section on a major book include some comments relating to major news stories about that book? If the wording in any way accusatory of ill-doing on the part of the author in Wikipedia's voice? Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

These are allegations of academic misconduct. For an academic, it might as well be a crime. So we should wait to see what sort of consensus emerges among economists about the merits of the accusations. WP:NOTNEWS, n'est pas? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually they are documented and [redacted]. It is now covered in well over two hundred RS sources, and should be covered in a neutral manner, but refusing to mention it at all is not being "neutral" AFAICT. It made the Guardian, WSJ, NYT, WaPo, Slate, and every major newspaper out there. Each hour adds to the mass of coverage, and we can forget anything embarrassing, but we ought not say "IDONTLIKEIT" as the reason at all. There is no allegation of any crime - only of [redacted], and of adjustments to data which Piketty states he made. Were the wording accusatory, I would be the first to remove it onBLP grounds, but I suggest that it meets NPOV as well as any item can. Collect (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC) BLP violations redacted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It's so hard to reconcile Collect's desire to take the article discussing a controversy but not taking sides on it with his typically protective view on BLP's that I had to figure out what it was that was so different about this person than his usual whitewashes. Then I figured it out - he's a liberal! Given that the Bloomberg article uses specific attribution regarding the claims of malfeasance, and makes it clear that there are alternative opinions, to state the malfeasance as fact in Wikipedia's voice is inappropriate. Given that there are a number of explanations given, and the claim has not been reviewed at all, by anyone, it appears to be given undue weight by being mentioned without giving similar mention to the substantial refutation on the same page. Hipocrite (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW, the refutation is included in the exact same edit you object to -- amazing, isn't it? Piketty responded by saying he had to adjust statistics from a diverse set of data. Collect (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

And ad homs appear as if by magic. The existence of the controversy is now covered in well over three hundred reliable sources, and mysteriously not mentioned in his Wikipedia BLP at all. Yet mentioned in a sub-article - but fails the cut to be even mentioned in that subarticle's summary. And the result is that "Collect" is blamed for all those sources making their articles, as though I were the writer for the Guardian, NYT, WSJ, FT etc. The fact that someone is liberal or conservative has nothing the hell to do with what the sources say and I would ask Hipocrite in his ad homs to note my edits on "conservatives" like Johann Hari [4], [5], [6] etc. Alex Sink [7], [8] etc., Nigel Evans [9], Abby Martin [10], Mick Jagger [11], David Copperfield (illusionist) [12] , List of nicknames of United States Presidents [13], [14] and a host of other "nicknames", and many thousands of other edits belying your assertions which are so often iterated. (partial list commented out but here for anyone to check out) :::Has the "claim" that the FT editor asserted that errors and changes to data were made by Piketty been "reviewed"? Yes -- by hundreds of reliable sources. Including Krugman and others. But disallowed to be even mentioned on Wikipedia -- but not on WP:BLP grounds no assertion of a crime here, report reprinted in hundreds of reliable sources, person is notable specifically for reasons related to the data, etc.) Nope "Collect" is treated as though he were the editor of the FT, the editor of the WSJ, editor of the Economist, editor of the WSJ, editor of the NYT, editor of The Independent, editor of HuffPo, editor of Slate, editor of The Telegraph etc. FWIW, I am not the editor of the several hundred reliable sources which have covered this story, and I have no COI of any sort whatsoever regarding any political articles of biographies whatsoever. BTW, Hypocrite, read [15] if you would like to see rather racier stuff than "smoothed data". Sorry Hipocrite, the facts are clear -- my edits are based on what the damned sources state in absolute conformance with WP:BLP and not on me running those sources. Collect (talk) 13:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

(Involved editor). This is to do with allegations of misconduct against the article subject made by Chris Giles in the Financial Times a couple of days ago. The thing is that, since then, various economists have commented in various articles, including economists who object to Piketty, and there seems to be a crystal clear consensus that Giles' criticisms are not well-founded and are not serious for Piketty. No-one has come out in support of Giles. It may be that other economists are about to press "send" and the tide may yet turn in Giles' favour. But we can't predict the future. So, what we have is a storm in a teacup (albeit the FT is quite a high-profile teacup), and the issue is about weight.

The spat is covered in the article on the book in question (Capital in the Twenty-First Century), which I don't think anyone objects to, but the question is whether it should also feature in the short passage describing the book in the Thomas Piketty article. That is, whether the existence of Giles's allegations is one of the two or three key facts about the book that the reader needs to know before they click through to find out more. I take the view that it is completely out-of-proportion for us to essential say something along the lines of "In 2013 he published a book, it was about wealth inequality and it has been described as a fraudulent crock".

I'm surprised to see Collect asserting that Piketty has admitted any wrongdoing or error. He hasn't, and I've already had that discussion with Collect on the article talkpage. Formerip (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Please deal with what I actually write -- as you make an assertion that I made a claim which I did not make. And which I already corrected you on at the talk page. Piketty has stated that transcription errors may be there, and also said he "smoothed" the data. I never said he "admitted wrongdoing" and that sort of claim here does not benefit anyone. Rather, the issue here is whether the material exists, and whether Wikipedia should be the only place on the earth which ignores it. As for your expert economist training and finding that "no one supports Giles" I fear you may be forgetting or eliding quite a few reliable sources which do nothing of the sort. So do we continue acting like Giles does not exist, and that the Economist and other reliable sources do not exist, or do we obey Wikipedia policy? Collect (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Collect, in the interests of ensuring that our BLP policy is followed, please provide sources demonstrating that Piketty has admitted to making, or that he might have made, transcription errors and, even though it is not relevant to anything and would hardly constitute an admission of anything, that he has admitted to data smoothing. In return, I'll give you as clear an explanation as I can as to what it is you are reading wrongly. Formerip (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You asserted a claim to me which I did not make. [16] Piketty wrote: Let me first say that the reason why I put all excel files on line, including all the detailed excel formulas about data constructions and adjustments. and As I make clear in the book, in the on-line appendix, and in the many technical papers I have published on this topic, one needs to make a number of adjustments to the raw data sources so as to make them more homogenous over time and across countries. we will certainly improve upon my series and adjustments (some of which can certainly be discussed). Of course, as I make clear in my book, wealth rankings published by magazines are far from being a perfectly reliable data source. All direct quotes. [17] from the Guardian: In an interview with the Agence France-Presse news agency, the economist said: "The FT is being ridiculous because all of its contemporaries recognise that the biggest fortunes have grown faster." While the available data was imperfect, it did not undermine his central argument about widening inequality, he said. More on request -- but this covers the topic in his own words. Again - what is proper is to indicate that the contretemps exists, is sourced to reliable sources, and that Piketty said, in his own words, he had to make "adjustments" to the data. "to make them more homogeneous over time". Collect (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how best to respond, because these quotes do not say anything at all about either transcription errors or data smoothing. Perhaps you will consider redacting the claims you make above about these two things until such time as you are able to substantiate them.

The things that Piketty does say in the quotes you give are not alarming or an indication that anything might be wrong. He's dealing with difficult and complicated data. That's all he's really saying. If you think he is saying "I made adjustments to the data, maybe that's where I fucked up, that'd be just like me", then you are just misinterpreting. What he is actually saying is "My work is very complicated and it would not be surprising for someone to fail to understand it properly on a first pass".

It seems to me that you are seeing the word "adjustment" and making up in your own head that it is indicative of something terrible. But it isn't. If you've got 36 eggs and I ask you how many dozen eggs you have, you need to make an adjustment in order to answer me. Economists make adjustments all the time in order to make one bit of data comparable with another. For example, if you are dealing with data on tax in the 1980s and you know that the data is affected by a tax code change in 1987, you will need to figure out how to adjust your data to ensure that you are comparing like with like, as best you can, across the decade. That's all we are talking about. Formerip (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Relying on primary sources in order to discredit those sources for making "adjustments," which mainly includes things like converting currencies and inflation is beneath contempt. Hipocrite (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The affair is international news, (Newsweek, The Guardian, Forbes, Fortune) so we clearly have to write about it. But we can give both sides; the Guardian article seems supportive. --GRuban (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

In summary, using as a refutation to the claim by the author that "he had to adjust statistics from a diverse set of data," is woefully lacking in detail and ignores the contribution to the debate by others, who have strongly defended the methodology and conclusions. The relevance of this to the person, as opposed to the book is tremendously questionable. But don't DARE say that Collect whitewashes conservatives and shits on liberals! Hipocrite (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Go through every single damn article I have edited (they are listed above in case you want to find them) and repeat that slur. It is tiresome indeed to have you make false and grotesque attacks on me at this point, and I am damn well tired of it. Check my edits, show people just how much I "whitewashed" Johann Hari's BLP and tell them that means he is a closet conservative of some sort - LOL. Throwing the same shit at me a thousand times does not make it remotely true, and you are hereby apprised of the fact that I consider this harassment of the first water. Collect (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to get distracted by you crying harassment, any more than I'm going to let you cry blp about whatever your cause of the week is. Let's go back to focusing on you slandering an identifiable living person using misrepresented sources. Hipocrite (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Collect's edit on 24 May in this section includes "admitted errors which Piketty made" [18] -- an allegation which I believe Collect cannot substantiate. I think Collect should redact this and any similar statements. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

And Piketty has said there may be transcription errors in the data. For G-d's sake, get a life on this. I can not redact facts, folks. And the claim of such errors was made by reliable sources -- not by me. I am not the FT, WSJ, NYT, Guardian et al - all I do is read what the reliable sources state. Collect (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a substantial difference between "may be transcription errors in the data" and "admitted errors which Piketty made." Hipocrite (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Collect, you really should either substantiate these claims about what Piketty has said or withdraw them. Piketty hasn't acknowledged any error or indicated that there might have been any error. Formerip (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Kindly step back an inch as Piketty has made clear that transcription errors exist, others agree that transcription errors exist, Krugman says they exist (Giles finds a few clear errors ... None of this absolves Piketty from the need to respond to each of the individual questions. ) etc. Piketty: When contacted by the FT ahead of publication for his response to the findings, Prof Piketty said he had “no doubt that my historical data series can be improved and will be improved in the future.” But, he added he would be “very surprised if any of the substantive conclusion about the long-run evolution of wealth distributions was much affected by these improvements.” In the wake of publication of the FT’s findings, Prof Picketty said the available data on wealth was “imperfect” The extent of any such erros is what we use reliable sources for - not our own opinions of any sort. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It's surprising that you don't get it. Nothing in these quotes has Pilketty "admitting that he made errors". Imperfect data are not necessarily imperfect because Pilketty made an error; neither does speculation that the data will be improved constitute admission of an error. You appear to have made an unsubstantiated allegation against a living person, and it's puzzling that you refuse to retract it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

What Piketty said to Newsweek: "He didn’t give me proper time to respond (less than 24 hours) and most of all the mail he sent me did not include a large part of the material that they were going to publish. I maintain that there’s no error or flaw in my series...What’s really dishonest is that the small corrections that they make to my series (and with which I disagree) do not make any difference to the overall evolution and to the overall analysis proposed in the book...and they try to pretend the opposite." [19] Formerip (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

After reading this piece by Neil Irwin (here: Everything You Need to Know About Thomas Piketty vs. The Financial Times) it's pretty clear that Piketty is not redacting anything or admitting any error whatsoever.Christian Roess (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Ritesh Batra

The introduction is taken from another website and does not match the Wikipedia format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oshamir (talk • contribs) 22:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to our attention - I have removed the copy-pasted material, and warned the contributor responsible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Chris Buors

The right to be forgotten is now the law of the land in Europe.

I would like to be forgotten since I have retired from politics and never expected to be a subject of a Wikipedia entry in the first place.

You can imagine the trouble I would have finding a job when prospective employers read my entry.

I am requesting my entry be deleted in its entirety.

Thank you

Chris Buors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.244.126 (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of how Wikipedia is going to approach the issue of this ruling in Europe, if you are indeed Chris Buors you are not a citizen of the EU anyway, and so the ruling would not apply. Having said that, I am unconvinced your entry is notable enough anyway... Black ~~Kite~~ kite (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

There should be a new FAQ page about Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González, otherwise people are going to get hold of the wrong end of the stick. The key points are:

It applies only in Europe.
It does not prevent the publication of material, only linking to it in search engine results (weird but true).
There is no guaranteed right to the removal of material, as a balance has to be struck between the right to privacy and the right to know.

Existing policies such as WP:GNG and WP:DUE cover most of the issues in these cases. As predicted, many people want references to past criminal convictions to be removed. Wikipedia should always be cautious about including convictions in a BLP unless they are essential to establish context in the article. Chris Buors is an article with WP:ADAM problems. While not quite a candidate for deletion, it could be shortened considerably.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Buors, on the human side of things, one can sympathize with you but unfortunately there is not much we can do here. Your past is your past and if that past include a political career, and your actions are recorded in reliable sources, you will have an article in Wikipedia about you. Cwobeel (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Per ianmacm above, the article needs pruning as much of the article is based on blog posts by the subject, failing WP:RS and WP:BLP. I have started he cleanup. Cwobeel (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

After removing the material that was very poorly sourced, and the original research in the article, I am getting the feeling that this is suitable candidate for WP:AFD. I will wait a day or so before submitting the article for deletion to allow other editors to weigh in.Cwobeel (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Strongly tempted to agree. Someone who never received more than a few hundred votes in any election and never held elected office is not a notable figure by Wikipedia standards. Furthermore, this article has been moribund in terms of new edits for several years, resulting in a generally poor condition, eg the official website http://www.chrisbuors.com/ is a dead link.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Buors ‎ Cwobeel (talk)

Stefan Molyneux

There is ongoing disagreement about the use of what several editors feel are poorly-sourced and promotional references on this article. The disputed content and sources have repeatedly been reintroduced into the article. More eyes are needed. Please have a look. SPECIFICO talk 00:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

David Eastman

David Eastman is an Australian convicted for murder in 1995 and imprisoned for life. A few days ago a judicial inquiry recommended the sentence be quashed and Eastman be granted a pardon. No decisions have yet been taken on these recommendations. The inquiry also concluded "I am fairly certain that the applicant is guilty of the murder" but that there had been a "substantial miscarriage of justice". Some police and prosecution matters were severely criticised in the Inquiry report.[20] I came to Eastman's article by chance and, finding the murder and its aftermath was overwhelming any biography[21], made a few changes and then, without discussion but following WP:CRIME, merged to the article on the victim Colin Winchester who is independently notable. The redirect was reverted and a second editor supported the revert. Since then, the second editor and I have tried to improve the original article. The material merged to the victim's article remains in place. Although he had a brilliant start at school, the reported information about Eastman's adult life is wholly negative, even for events long before the murder. The Australian press is agog at present and Eastman has been in the news for decades. Is the article currently a BLP violation? What is for the best now, and what if Eastman is pardoned? Thincat (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem in leaving it as is for the present and making changes if/when there is a pardon. He's currently a convicted murderer. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

This has words to consider for any crime-related BLP about the dangers of painting a person with a single brush: “It just shows you what happens when someone is picked out as being, rightly or wrongly, the perp,” Mr Stretton said. “Everything that incriminates that person is put on the file, and anything exculpatory is just ignored.” I don't think well-sourced negative biographical material should be taken out of the bio, but it might be nice to have more context for where the "nagging doubt" comes from. The original conviction is presented with no sense of the BLPs actual defense. Maybe that's fine for a conviction that sources treat as settled, but it's odd for one where the trial is more formally found to be "unfair" in some significant way. ___ E L A Q U E A T E 10:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The linked to article was about the police having "tunnel vision". It's different for WP - if the sources have "tunnel vision" about a case then so should WP, otherwise we start getting into WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS territory. "More context for where the 'nagging doubt' comes from" should only be there if there had been sufficient coverage of it in the sources for it not to be WP:UNDUE, IMO. In this case, from what you said (I don't know anything about it), it looks as though doubt was caste on the fairness of the trial only in the last few days with the judicial enquiry decision, and that a decision on a pardon will be forthcoming shortly. I would have thought it was best to see how this all pans out in the sources first, and whether the pardon comes through. DeCausa ([[User talk:DeCautalk) 11:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I have now commented further on the "nagging doubt" at Talk:David Eastman#Merge to Colin Winchester. Thincat (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

if the sources have "tunnel vision" about a case then so should WP...notwithstanding any BLP concerns, of course. The source for multiple points of negative background material (in the article as it stands) is sourced to a single "True Crime"-focussed article (which has a certain sensationalistic bent to it). A similar article covered the subject's new defense, and rationale for the inquiry, but this stuff didn't made it into our article back then. Now I'm pretty sure that the negative stuff can be sourced more widely, so I don't think it's in need of a major overhaul or anything. And it's perfectly legitimate to include his unsavoury history with the law and documented history of violent behavior. But while the inquiry concluded only a few days ago, there was nothing really indicating why the inquiry was initiated years ago, and why people were taking questions about the case seriously. The reported questions from legal authorities about the conviction were covered in more sources than made it to the article. Not a huge problem, but it shows how an article can sometimes bias more negatively overall than sources when it's about an event or subject generally reported in a sensationalistic way. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah that's different. That sounds like the article wasn't reflecting the doubts that the sources had been reporting. I thought that what was going on here was that the sources en masse, not just the ones in the article, weren't reflecting the "doubts". DeCausa (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Lenin karuppan (sri nithya dharmananda)

Bold textThis is the voice of Truth, the truth about the Nithyananda cult from a long time insider and whistle-blower, Lenin Karuppan alias Dharmananda. Satyameva Jayate

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Lenin-Karuppan/news/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRUTH2025 (talk • contribs)

We do not have an article about Lenin Karuppan, and we do not accept any blogspot site as a source. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

http://www.ndtv.com/article/cities/sex-swami-speaks-to-man-who-filmed-him-18388 http://www.scribd.com/doc/166485759/Audio-Record-of-Nithyananda-s-Confession http://videos.vikatan.com/webtv/index.php?video_id=8cOmWkxdBRU&p_title=Nithyanantha%20Ranjitha%20tape%20origonal%20%20lenin%20karuppan%20%20Junior%20Vikatan&this_date=20120701 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TRUTH2025 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC) http://www.deccanherald.com/content/125089/police-suspect-plaint-against-lenin.html

Please note that this is a noticeboard for matters concerning biographical material on Wikipedia. We do not have an article on this individual. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Swami Nithyananda is probably the appropriate article but the last thing that article needs is more advocacy, either for or against the subject. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Considering the OP has "TRUTH" in his username, it'd almost be reasonable to assume without all the above evidence that he's here specifically to advocate. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That article is a bit of a disaster, very poorly sourced and in need of a scrub. Cwobeel (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Lucas Neff

There have been a number of edits relating to Lucas Neff's gun-control activism, made by editors who have not worked on any other articles.

While the edits have improved slightly in that they now cite a reliable source, something which appears to be Neff's own twitter feed, they continue to display a non-neutral point of view. E.g. characterizing Neff's twitter post as "ill-advised," describing a cited tweet in which Neff describes the drafters of the Constitution were white men and are now deceased as "mocking the founding fathers of the United States" (previously describing it as "mocking the Constitution).

Should some action be taken? Crypticfirefly (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted the section entirely, as badly-sourced WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I had done so twice already. I wonder if temporarily protecting the page might not be a bad idea as well?. Crypticfirefly (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd wait until the contributor responds further - it seems to be one individual responsible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing there, since it's all sourced to the subject's twitter account, thus making it original research. Even assuming that there was actual secondary coverage of the "controversy" it would have to be weighed against the rest of the article and its impact on the subject's career/life assessed, etc. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I think you can use the individual's own twitter feed as a source for something that the individual posted, but that doesn't really get anywhere. Crypticfirefly (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Michael Wines

Tag team insertion [22] of material intended to denigrate Michael Wines. The quoted source, Vanity Fair, makes it clear that the "information" (see http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/02/exile-201002) could only come from a "newspaper" that it characterized as "Since its debut, in 1997, The Exile, which read like the bastard progeny of Spy magazine and an X-rated version of Poor Richard’s Almanack, had pilloried, in the foulest terms possible, almost everyone of importance, and no importance, in Russia, and had made a point of violating not one but all of Article Four’s provisions. But everyone knew that." In short it was a kompromat publication - clearly not a reliable source. Including kompromat is not presenting the subject conservatively. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I also just removed the same material from the article on Matt Taibbi. Thanks to @Banchayehu: for pointing out this material. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

And now the same material at the eXile. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

That is complete nonsense. The source is vanity fair, not the eXile. There also many other sources reporting it as well. There is also the FAIR piece criticizing Wines, which should probably go in both articles as well. Your opinions about what the eXile was are not relevant. It's our job as editors to report what the secondary sources like Vanity fair say, not to editorialize.

You've also completely ignored the material on the talk pages, there has been a lot of discussion there already. dsol (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Clearly, I'll need some help on this. @Dsol: has reverted my deletions. Checking his edit history, this is something that he has done several times before over many years. I wouldn't call him a classic SPE, but on one history page you can see him add this material 5-6 times over as many years. I'll revert back on all 3 articles as the material is clearly a BLP violation. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That does not belong on Michael Wines, since he's arguably the victim. It would if there was some sourced reaction or issue larger than a crude joke by other people. But we should not include it in his biography. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Clearly a BLP violation, a manufactured 'event' to gain publicity for the pie-throwers. I don't think we need to help them in their quest to become infamous. Binksternet (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Smallbones for removing that BLP violation. I agree with Binksternet—Wikipedia is not available to coatrack minor publicity stunts into articles to give them undue attention. Johnuniq (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here. I agree with the removal from the bios. If there are good secondary sources it might be okay in the eXile, briefly summarized. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Ta-Nehisi Coates

Ta-Nehisi Coates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am asking for new, uninvolved editors to weigh in on this RfC. It involves whether we can include a mention of the subject's discipline problems in school. There is a dispute about the content, and you can help determine consensus. Thank you. Useitorloseit (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You need to stop wasting editors' time. Cwobeel (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You never joined debate, yet you felt ok with doing a speedy close minutes after I start an RfC?? Previous consensus splits were 3-3 and 2-1 in favor of my edits. I will use your behavior as Exhibit A when discussing the problem I have trying to conduct an unimpeded discussion. Useitorloseit (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Previous BLP noticeboard discussions regarding Ta-Nehisi Coates: February 2014 April 2014 __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

But those are attempts by involved, opposed editors to prevent discussion by getting their opponent blocked. That is an obvious conflict of interest. Useitorloseit (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

If this RfC closes with a consensus that the material should be left out, will you drop the issue and put down the stick once and for all? Or do you just intend to keep filing RfCs until you get the answer you want? Because if that's your intent, you really are wasting all our time and I'll request a topic ban, filing an ArbCom case if necessary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This is now at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Mambo Kurt

Mambo Kurt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This BLP stub has been around since 2005, and is still unreferenced. I am not sure how it survived being under the radar so long. Can somebody find sources for this BLP? I know almost no German, so I didn't even bother trying to search. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

AFD'ed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mambo Kurt Cwobeel (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at the German Wikipedia article on him, de:Mambo Kurt. --Bejnar (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Iván Faragó

Iván Faragó (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This BLP stub covers a chess grandmaster who has an absolutely beautiful article...on the Polish wikipedia. Here it's (arguably) two sentence fragments, no citations, and a pair of external links with extraordinarily limited information on the man himself. Seeing the notability in being a grandmaster at chess I redirect the page to our list of Chess Grandmasters when this article was csd tagged, but since its been recreated I'd like input on what to do with it now. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Within WikiProject Chess there seems to be general agreement that Grandmasters qualify as notable and should have wikipedia articles. Obviously that article needs some work; so do a lot of articles in WikiProject Chess and on wikipedia in general. I'm an eventualist. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I did a bit more work on it, hopefully there's enough there now to save it from the ~~deletionists on the prowl~~ curators. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Frank Minor

More eyes please, minor edit war brewing.--ukexpat (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Dee Palmer

Hi, I redacted a slur and an IP has been reverting it. Admin intervention requested if this persists.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked already. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Ignazio Ciufolini

Now, also RetractionWatch dedicate a full story to his pseudonyms http://retractionwatch.com/2014/06/03/journal-retracts-letter-accusing-physicist-of-using-fake-names-to-criticize-papers-on-arxiv/ Is it still not enough to insert it in his page?56OKLO34 (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if Retraction Watch is considered a reliable source for these things, although I think I've seen it in some articles. If it is indeed accepted then that would be considered a valid secondary source and I would have no problem with the insertion of the information, so long as it is worded neutrally, which sources aside, has not been the case in the past. A few of the BLPN regulars (@NorthBySouthBaranof and Cwobeel:) are acquainted with the case, so I'd wait for a few comments from them at least. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The source says that the journal formally retracted the letter making allegations against the article subject. That withdraws whatever credibility they might have gained from being published. To quote the source:

It is clear that there exist between you a deep-rooted disagreement related to the matter of alleged pseudonymous publishing, one that, on reflection, I do not feel should be aired in the pages of JASIST. You are both career physicists, active in the field and working in Italy. Moreover, as best I can tell, you have actually co-authored papers on multiple occasions. It, therefore, makes much more sense for your disagreement, whatever its origins and dimensions, to be discussed and arbitrated on locally by members of either the physics community or the Italian higher education system. The letter from Dr. Iorio has been removed from the JASIST (Early View) website and will not now be published in the Journal.

If anything, it is even more clear now that the allegations are a personal spat that should not be advanced or aired on Wikipedia either. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

What about this http://cds.cern.ch/record/1022277/ and this http://cds.cern.ch/record/1077337?ln=it ? Still a "personal spat"? A fabrication by Iorio? Or this https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1904735_A_critical_analysis_of_the_GP-B_mission._I_on_the_impossibility_of_a_reliable_measurement_of_the_gravitomagnetic_precession_of_the_GP-B_gyroscopes? And https://www.scienceopen.com/document/vid/742855d7-9fba-4783-936f-af31e9c80945? And http://eprintweb.org/s/article/gr-qc/0712.3934? Are those primary, secondary, tertiary sources, or whatever else? How long you will persist in refusing to look into the telescope just because you do not like it grasping to any sort of absurdities? 56OKLO34 (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with FreeRangeFrogcrog. Don't think this material is suitable for that BLP, as the sources provided may not pass the threshold of reliability. Cwobeel (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Sheryl Plouffe

This article was created as a redirect. The redirect points to an article where this person, Sheryl Plouffe, was employed. I Googled "Sheryl Plouffe", and she was a broadcaster with that network. I'm not quite sure she's notable enough for an article though. I wasn't sure how to handle the "article-redirect" thing. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything to handle here. This makes it look like she's still associated with the network as a longstandingly employed weather presenter. If she's not notable enough to have an article of her own, I don't see any issue with there being a redirect to her organization for any reader looking her up. I'm sure if someone wanted to make the case she needed her own article that could be assessed when someone tried to make one. But if there's no suggestion of a better target for her redirect, it seems completely drama-free to leave things as they are now.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Jodie Foster and BLPCAT

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

is currently in two LGBT categories, even though the article says she has never spoken publicly about her sexual identity. An IP has raised this on Jimbo's talk page, where there are some very surprising contributions by experienced contributors, including the notion that she has "self-identified by getting married to a woman". Discussion here might be more productive. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Not very surprising at all, considering that there were three very specific RfCs carried out regarding these questions. The only RfC which obtained consensus was the one about LGBT categories, which means that the biography is now categorized LGBT.

Sources are very clear that Foster has married a woman. The RfCs made clear that this does not make her a lesbian, nor does it make her bisexual. However, it puts her in the LGBT category. That's what was determined, hence the action. The IP complainer you mentioned is some insistent person from Toronto who got blocked for 24 hrs because of edit warring over these categories. I didn't think the IP's arguments were so strong that they would reverse a very well populated decision. Binksternet (talk) 06:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Your speculation that Jody Foster belongs in the LGBT category because she has married a woman is quite reasonable, but against policy. Jody Foster has not self-identified as lesbian or as bisexual or as transgendered. The policy states "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". LGBT is not a hold-all category that means "people we think might be something other than straight". It is convenience grouping since the members of those groups often share similar concerns. Incidentally, World Pride 2014 is being held in Toronto. 75.119.224.148 (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"This is quite reasonable, but against policy" is why we have WP:IAR. Common sense says that someone who publicly enters into a same-sex marriage should be considered to fall within the LGBT category, even without an explicit public declaration. If the rules do not permit this, then the rules should be ignored. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The same goes for the other articles in Category:LGBT actresses. They are all in the generic LGBT cat because the subjects never identified with any particular sexual identity, but have been public about same-sex relationships. Siawase (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

RE BLPCAT - I have generally operated under "Have they self declared?" and "Is it completely obvious and sourceable to a degree where even if the subject says otherwise, its staying in". As Foster has not identified as L, G, B or T, we cannot individually categorise her as any one of them. However by being married to another woman, it is unarguable she is at least one of them, even if she has not said which one. If Foster should choose to comment at some point and say which she is, or isnt, great, we can invent a new category just for her. However until then, the LGBT category is acceptable. It is beyond ridiculous to state a woman married to another woman should not be categorised as LGBT because they have not self-declared. If her spokesperson is happy to confirm the wedding to the BBC, then its enough to say she is on the LGBT spectrum somewhere. I'm all for protection of peoples privacy, and I hate categorising people based on who they are, sleeping with, colour of skin etc, but there is a big difference between respecting someones right to keep silent, and stating the obvious (and well sourced) Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The article will continue to say that she is married to a woman. If readers wish to assume that she is therefore gay, they are free to do so. Wikipedia should not be making that assumption on their behalf. The only way to "respect" her right to keep silent is by leaving off the categories. 75.119.224.148 (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow this argument, as Foster came out at at the Golden Globes 2013. [23] Cwobeel (talk)

Well, actually she did not really Cwobeel (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

She most certainly did. For unquestionably reliable secondary sources that make it clear she came out at said Golden Globes, see [24], [25], [26], [27]. Hipocrite (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

No...she didn't. Even the Advocate thinks the entire situation is too ambiguous for them.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's what the Advocate says about Foster: "Eventually she stopped kidding and came out." [28]. Hipocrite (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Not according to the previous discussion here. Secondary sources are not sufficient to add the categories. 75.119.224.148 (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your reading of the earlier thread, strongly. Hipocrite (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

And I disagree with your interpretations of all of this, but especially the sources. Why do you care so much about labeling Ms. Foster. Can you explain that?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

With that, Mark, I'll put you on ignore. Have a wonderful life! Hipocrite (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

That shows a lot about your intentions to me. Thanks for ignoring editors based on your emotions and opinions. Clearly you have no real response so perhaps all editors should ignore you. That is up to them but when looking at how quickly your went there...I am singularly unimpressed.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources state the subject came out,[29] which is, of course, based on her own direct words "coming out" [30]; secondary sources refer to "gay marriage" when discussing her marriage. [31]. Individual Wikipedian's may not like what reliable sources say but that changes neither the language the reliable sources use, nor the accepted and ordinary meaning of the language that reliable sources (including the subject herself) used. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Uhm, there is no self identification in any of that. And reliable sources all seem to differ. The important issue is for an unambiguous statement from the subject which I don't see.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, we disagree; there is no reason to doubt she knows the accepted and ordinary meaning of the words she used (coming out) to describe what she was doing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are attempting to interpret what she meant by "coming out" as that is all she said and if you need to interpret what she said....that is a problem. She has not actually self identified as gay or lesbian. Can we just wait until she actually just comes right out and makes the statement? I didn't realize this was such an emergency that we have to push this.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

(multiple e-c) The issue seems to me to relate to matters of technical definitions which are seemingly used in the relevant academic field and the less specific terminology used in the popular press, whose audience probably doesn't know all the technical terms involved. Personally, I have to say that I am included in the group of the non-knowledgable here. Personally, I could myself live quite happily with using whatever broad terms might be used in the non-specialized literature on the topic of the variations in human sexuality, but my standards are not necessarily those of wikipedia. And, of course, and I am not intentionally trying to be ridiculous here, there could, at least theoretically, be an issue with the matter of Foster's broader self-identification. If, for whatever reason, I identified myself as one of the aliens from 3rd Rock from the Sun or the equivalent, I would not describe myself as being homo- or hetero-sexual, because I myself would be an asexual alien. I suppose gender self-identification, or something similar, might, maybe, be a factor in how Foster sees herself. Technically, I think this is really splitting hairs, but, sometimes, that is what we are obliged to do around here.

Regarding the use of the phrase "coming out," that phrase does not so far as I know have an absolutely concrete definition, and, on that basis, our attempting to impose a definition on it might well qualify as a violation of OR. John Carter (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to interpret, the reliable sources directly say what they say. Repeating what reliable sources say is the opposite of original research (rather your claims appear to be original research). I'm not the one who is trying to imagine she did not use the words she used. As for the ordinary meaning see coming out. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Our policy is clear, it isn't about what the sources claim, it is about what the subject themselves state. No source shows Ms Foster as actually claiming a sexual identity...so we just don't either.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

That's untrue, both as to policy application and as to the proper use of reliable sources, and the appropriate reading of her words for which we turn to reliable sources (not what you say they mean) but all this has been said above about the usual consensus use of LGBT categories, which is not something one person identifies as being. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

One other possibility comes to mind here. It strikes me as being unlikely, but certainly possible, that for whatever reason an individual female might prefer engaging exclusively in acts of Cunnilingus or similar, and that theoretically such a female might, potentially, still experience sexual attraction to members of the male sex, but not to the sexual acts, including standard heterosexual intercourse, which males might come to expect in a committed sexual relationship. I remember reading in Alan Moore's From Hell that London prostitutes tended to prefer cunnilingus or similar for recreational purposes. Could this, theoretically, in some way, be a similar case. I tend to think that it is more likely that Jodie Foster will accidentally reveal herself to be a Durlan during her next media appearance, but that is just a personal opinion. John Carter (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Uhm....I am at a loss for words here.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I might well be wrong, considering this is not at all a field in which I am remotely an expert, but such a person could still theoretically see themselves as "heterosexual," in terms of their experiencing sexual attraction to members of the opposite sex, but either as a result of some sort of personal trauma (not assuming such in this case) or personal preference, be in some way not so attracted to sexual activity of the person of the other sex. If such a person also considered the sex act to be of lesser importance as a determinant than the sexual attraction aspect, they might, maybe, still see themselves as "heterosexual", based on the sexual attraction, but not based on the activities indulged in. And, not necessarily like this case, in which I do not necessarily assume anything like this happened, I have heard of people traumatized by rape as a child who are "turned off" to sex of the kind in the abuse. I am just saying this to indicate that, at least in my eyes, the number of possible variations on sexuality which can reasonably be seen to maybe exist is so broad, compared to the rather limited number of words most of us know to describe them, that any number of people, might, theoretically, not label themselves by a given term, and maybe personally think such labelling to be inaccurate in their particular case. I have no doubt that there are other variations on these themes as well that I can't think of, but, given the huge numbers of variations on the themes possible, I can myself think that it would not be unreasonable to not label someone by a term they have not themselves used, except in those rare instances when we know all the details of their individual cases, and can use that information to select the most accurate existing term. This, however, does not seem to be such a case. John Carter (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Mark Miller and the recently blocked IP are correct, she never self identified as anything, therefore we can't put a template on that identifies her as Gay, Les or anything else. It's a violation of BLP. The RFC violates BLP , per LocalConsensus and per IAR needs to be ignored and the cat needs to be removed. Kosh Vorlon 16:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that someone in a same-sex marriage is LGBT is so strongly suggested by common sense that it falls under WP:IAR itself. IAR means that rules should be ignored when their applications are extremely stupid. Claiming that someone in a same-sex marriage cannot be classified as LGBT is extremely stupid, and we should ignore the rule about self-identification in that case. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

KoshVorlon You are topic banned from transgender issues, broadly construed. LGBT would fit in that. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Half the problem is the category's page itself. It only mentions lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. LGBT means a lot more than that as the page itself says. It's anyone not exclusively heterosexual. Foster said she "came out" and is thus under the umbrella of LGBT. I don't see what the issue here is. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

THAT is the issue. She only used a term, she never said anything about her sexuality and was being tongue in cheek. "Coming out" does not mean "gay", "homosexual" or "bisexual" or even transgendered. And yes, the Term LGBT stands for "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered". Under that umbrella is also those supporters and family and is always a self identification not a forced label placed on someone without their acknowledgment.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how you can "come out" and be married to someone of the same sex and gender and not be considered LGBT. Coming out, in common understanding, does mean non-straight unless qualified with something like "as an atheist". LGBT typically does not refer to "those supporters and family" according to sources on LGBT. I know an A is sometimes stuck in the, but the typically meaning is non-hetero and/or non-cis. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

"Coming out" is a general term to mean admitting something. When foster said that she never said gay, she said single. I think you are using what little there is to leap to a conclusion. LGBT is not about who we add to or name ourselves. It is a self identification of the subject. Just because you can put two and two together and see a same sex relationship does not mean the person is identifying as gay, homosexual or even bisexual. I object to labeling someone with something that is not a defining characteristic of that person through categorization in this manner.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I opposed classifying Foster merely on the basic of her rambling speech, but this is quite clear. I agree with EvergreenFir and Ken Arromdee. When you marry someone of the same sex, you are identifying yourself as LGBT. Just look on our article same-sex marriage, which seems quite clear on the subject. --GRuban (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

There are many, many examples in recent Hollywood history of gay men being married to straight women or vice versa, e.g. Liza Minnelli and her first husband, or Margaret Cho and her current one. The gender of one's spouse is not necessarily an indicator of one's own sexual orientation. Tarc (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yet we assume if someone is married to the opposite sex, they are straight and don't even question it. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

How so? As Tarc has said, there's actually even more reason to question it. However for various reasons we don't have many or any? categories for straight people, therefore it's usually more of a academic issue. Nil Einne (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

As this category is supposed to reflect self-categorization, and as she seems to have chosen not to use that terminology, it is not something we should choose for her. Her absence from the category should not cause vast problems. If we had a category for women who are married to women, that would seem to be what she came out as and would qualify for. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

centralize discussion This is currently being discussed on Jimbo's talk page, here, and at Talk:Jodie Foster. For the sake of sanity could we centralize discussion at Talk:Jodie Foster? If people disagree with the categorization, I suggest formulating a new neutral RFC and seeing where the community consensus lies, again.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Obiwankenobi Can you start a new section for it or something? There's over 9000 sections about it already.

Do we have a bigger problem

Above User:Siawase suggests we have plenty of people in Category:LGBT actresses who have never self identified LGBT but have simply been public about same sex relationships. Is this true? If so, it seems to me we have a bigger problem presuming some of these are living people. In a case like this, where the subject has gotten married and has said they were 'coming out' even if they didn't specify they were LGBT I an see an argument that we should use such a category even with out requirement people self-identify. It's a little more extreme in cases where the only thing we have is ~~one~~two publicly acknowledged relationships, particular as there are people who identify as exclusively heterosexual despite having acknowledging having been in atwo or more same sex relationships in the past. I was under the impression we'd cracked down on such cases so am I wrong? Nil Einne (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit: Seems we only have 3 people including Foster in that category so perhaps the problem is not so widespread. Still it seems some clarity over when to add people would help. In particular, adding people simply because they've acknowledged being in atwo or more same sex relationship is as I've said a little extreme. None of the other 2 examples, seem to fit in to that mold, both Maria Bello and Amber Heard seem to at a minimum imply they are not exclusively heterosexual in their statements. (This is mentioned in our article for Heard, in Bello it isn't but it is in the source.) But it's still concerning if people think only ~~a single~~two or more acknowledged same sex relationships would be enough in itself to add a person to that category. Nil Einne (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit 2: I see the actual wording used above was "relationships". This doesn't change my view as two relationships isn't that big a difference so I've clarified my wording accordingly. Nil Einne (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)"

When I posted above Rosalinda Celentano and Simona Borioni were also included in Category:LGBT actresses, but it looks like they were since moved to Category:Lesbian actresses (they are engaged to each other, but no self-identifications are mentioned in either of their articles.)

There is quite a bit of history of Wikipedia editors jumping to categorize living people, who haven't self-identified, based on their publicly known relationships. And the categories editors pick frequently do not jibe with the subject's eventual self-identification. For a while Lindsay Lohan was included in Category:LGBT actresses based on a public same-sex relationship, but was removed based on a statement of "I don't want to classify myself." She now identifies as straight. (Meanwhile Amber Heard is included in LGBT cats with a statement of "I don't label myself one way or another.") Jessie J was included in LGBT cats because she said "I've dated girls and I've dated boys" but was removed after saying "For me, [bisexuality] was a phase". Sarah Paulson was included in Category:Lesbian actresses based on a public same-sex relationship, but was moved to Category:Bisexual actors years later after saying she's open to dating men. Kirsten Vangsness was added to Category:Lesbian actresses after announcing a same-sex engagement, but the clearest self-identification in her article is "queer" (I just moved her to Category:Queer actors). Basically, categorizing living people based on their known relationship history doesn't seem to be a great idea. If we're going to do it we definitely need some more stringent guidelines on how to go about it. Siawase (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

One bigger risk would be that we purge Wikipedia of LGBT-related information out of a misplaced judgment that it's a scandalous association. That kind of judgment is no better than prurient interest and does no service to the interest of avoiding harm to living people. The inquiry ought to be technical: does the category definition imply that somebody has self-identified as a member of the LGBT community? If so, and if reliable sources do not support that she has done so, then it is improperly sourced. On the other hand, does this (or another) category suggest that she is of interest to the subject of LGBT? If so, then the category is properly sourced. Certainly, a woman (well sourced as) marrying or having a significant romantic relationship with another woman is of interest to the subject, whether or not that affects their sexual identity. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Scandalous? Try trivial instead. For many LGBT celebrities being LGBT is just one of the trivialities of their life, like for others being a National Rifle Association member. Speaking of which, several celebrities listed at the notable members section of the NRA article are in no People associated with firearms (sub)category. As always, for comprehensive treatment lists is the way to go, not categories.

Let the sources speak on what is significant and what isn't, no level of scandalousness judgement needed on the part of Wikipedia editors. Neither a judgement on whether something is of interest to the subject (that was a typo, right? WP:BLPCAT only speaks about what is relevant to public life & notability, not what it means on a personal level to the subject).

To the BLP examples given above by Siawase, I'd like to add some non-BLP ones: most people in or around the Bloomsbury Group are catalogued in bisexual categories. Is that correct? Weren't most of them either essentially straight (with some bi-curiousness in their youth or an isolated not necessarily sexually oriented infatuation for someone of the same sex later on) or gay/lesbian (with a one-off heterosexual experiment in the course of their life, etc)? The current categorisation appears quite inadequate for me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Combining the examples by Siawase and the ones I gave I think it would be better to make the LGBT people category non-diffusing. In fact, this is what is recommended at WP:EGRS#General #5. As this has a larger scope than the BLP noticeboard, I'd have the discussion on this at Category talk:LGBT people#Make non-diffusing?. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Yank Barry

This page needs help from an administrator because there are several editors that are bent on a negative bias to cause harm. Editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about the living person over an extended period.

For example, under Court cases, someone has added a statement without it being accurately sourced with a link or a 3rd party document that can be verified. They have cited a reference #22, but it has no link and is not verifiable. Additional they have added content under Court Cases and cited references which don't verify that content.

In the Talk page, one editor Richfife made a clear statement about his agenda to maintain defamatory material on the subjects page in order to cause financial harm and threaten the subjects livelihood. It is posted on the Talk page on 03:59, 14 April 2014, under the section "Nobel Peace Prize nominee". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganbarreh (talk • contribs)

The supposedly problematic source (Macdonell, Rod (Oct 10, 1998). "Barry faces bribery charge in Texas". The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec).) is merely a newspaper article that is not online, but is available in databases and is thus verifiable. The newspaper is a respected one, with centuries of history behind it. This article has been subject to a series of SPA's who have sought to remove negative information and insert claims without a reliable source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I think he's referring the this edit here. Which, OK, isn't exactly my finest wikipedia moment. But, the point of the comment was not a call to arms for a smear campaign, but a call to arms to prepare for large amounts of edits biased towards the positive to the article. And if you look at the article history and the talk page, that is exactly what happened. Multiple editors have been banned for adding puffery and removing anything negative. The article is currently attracting 4-5 SPA accounts every day. The editor that opened this complaint is (so far) one of them. - Richfife (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We have a WP:RS reliable source for the bankruptcy.[32] It's an article in ArtNews written by a notable Bloomberg writer, William D. Cohan. Barry was eventually acquitted on the bribery charge, but there was plenty of press coverage; it was a big scandal in Texas. More to the point, there's been a huge effort on Wikipedia to make Yank Barry look good. We've been to WP:COIN twice, WP:AN/I three times, including one incident open right now, and through many sockpuppet investigations. There are an amazing number of accounts with editing interests limited to Yank Barry. John Nagle (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I have cleaned up a bit, removed section headings, set a proper chronology, and watch-listed the page. Cwobeel (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The threat to adversely affect the subject's livelihood is shocking and unseemly. I encourage Richfife to strike out that comment. Why should we make a big deal about a bribery charge where there was no conviction, and this person was actually acquitted? I have the article on my watch list now. This is a biography and should be neither a hagiography nor a hit piece. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make was "Making this article into a neutral coverage of all aspects of Barry's career will threaten his livelihood. I believe this because, based on the things I have seen, I believe that his livelihood is based on suspect enterprises. He will likely respond vigorously to any attempt to make the article an objective overview strongly, so we should be ready for that and committed if it happens." What I didn't say is "let's all set out to intentionally wreck this guy". I was pointing out that I thought that a neutral article would have negative consequences to Barry. If he was on the level, then a neutral article WOULDN'T have negative consequences and I'd just look like a paranoid idiot. - Richfife (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

From what I have seen, there are editors bent on turning the page into a malicious campaign. I have read through everything and these editors seem to have a double standard of what they consider and accept as well sourced material. They seem to pick and choose references that support their negative postings and discard sources from sites like CNN because it has anything positive to say. In my opinion, there are so many very good, highly credible sources I have dug up that should not be disputed or discarded as not well sourced. Can someone explain to me how these editors have been able to get away with this. Here are the sources I found, along with the facts that one can extract from them. Why would they be disputed?

GPO.gov

He worked with Muhammad Ali, Celine Dion, Michael Jordan and Buzz Aldrin to help feed the poor around the world.
Mr. Barry has received the India Humanitarian Service Award; the Bahamian Red Cross Humanitarian Award; the Cote d'Ivoire Humanitarian Award; the Juarez, Mexico, Hands of Love and Hope Award.
He was involved in field of advertising jingles including Kellogg's Raisin Bran, Dr. Pepper, Kodak, Red Lobster and General Motors.
He has appeared on the The Mike Douglas Show, The Merv Griffin Show, The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour and The Sally Jessy Raphael Show.
In 1975, Yank was commissioned by the White House to write and compose Welcome Home P.O.W.s.
In November of 2010 Yank received the Gusi Peace Prize for Social Services, Philanthropy and International Humanitarianism in Manila, The Philippines.
Yank was also named Philanthropist of the Year at the GLA 2011 Awards in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, presented by The Leaders Magazine and the American Leadership Development Association.
Most recently, Yank Barry and the Global Village Champions Foundation along with Evander Holyfield have freed more than 50 Syrian refugees, many of them children who are now beginning new lives in Bulgaria.

MOCM

There is so much content here from the Museum of Canadian Music, a highly credible source

Nothing_Left_to_Lose_(album)

Shows he produced the album Nothing Left to Lose

Discogs

Shows he wrote the song Christmas Time Again from the Christmas Tyme Again album of Engelbert Humperdinck

Discogs-Image of Album

See 3rd image, shows he wrote the song Christmas Time Again from the Christmas Tyme Again album of Engelbert Humperdinck

commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Yank_Barry

Look at all the awards and Gold Record albums here.

Highly credible News agencies:

(Ganbarreh (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC))

Many of the things he is citing as reliable sources are simply not. The GOP.gov link is for a piece from the Congressional Record, and the Congressional Record is not a reliable source for the statements it includes (it does not seek to verify facts put forth by a member of Congress, it merely prints them.) The Museum Of Canadian Music is not a reliable source - I inquired with them, and their article on Barry consists of whatever Barry's people submitted, they did not try to check it. And he's citing Wikipedia as a source, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Whatever the 'Museum of Canadian Music' is, it isn't a museum. It seems to be a website run by non-professionals. [33] And any source suggesting that there is such a thing as a "Nobel Peace Prize finalist" clearly isn't credible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and that CNN article that he's claiming as reliable states that "Barry, once the lead singer of The Kingsmen, shot to fame briefly in 1963 with the single "Louie Louie." " - in 1963, Barry was 15. He didn't become part of a band named The Kingsmen until 1968. Hard to pass that particular article off as reliable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

So, just because there is a simple typo of 1963 versus 1968, the entire source is invalidated. Is that the consensus position on the CNN source and any other source for that matter?

What about the other sources above? Any position on them? (Ganbarreh (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC))

No, that's not just a typo. If you put 1968 into the sentence, it still has Barry having a single "Louie, Louie"; I've seen zero sign that he released such a single, much less achieved any fame from it. As for the other sources, Discog is a user-edited database, and thus not a WP:RS; photos of gold records (which don't indicate what the involvement was) have a verifiability problem. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds material Verifiability. The (Macdonell, Rod (Oct 10, 1998). "Barry faces bribery charge in Texas". The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec).) source and bankruptcy claim has been called into question. Unless there is a verified source, it needs to be removed immediately. Follow the foundation of WP. Jimmy Wales (Ganbarreh (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC))

Really? In what way are you calling it into question? Did you check that Gazette article and not find the statement? Or are you just ignoring the source? You have been told how to obtain it. You keep pointing to that Wales cite as if it says anything beyond that statements should be sourced. It is sourced, to a source that is reliable and has specific enough detail on its location to be verifiable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you the person who added it, not the other editors to disprove it. Again, I call for the removal and have done so for many days now until they can unequivocally prove it with evidence that other editors can read. This is reckless and violates Biographies_of_living_persons. (Ganbarreh (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC))

No. Sufficient detail has been provided for the source to be verified. There is no requirement whatsoever that material must be available online. Unless you can show that the source cited has been misrepresented, there is no violation of policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There is now a legal threat associated with the Yank Barry article. Mr. Barry has had an attorney in LA send letters threatening a lawsuit to four Wikipedia editors, including myself. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_theat.2C_round_2. John Nagle (talk) 07:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Ice-T

IPs keep adding the middle name "Lauren" which I can't find an RS for. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 13:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

This is probably resolved, as the middle name is currently in the article. But in case it comes up again there are some sources that seem to support it.... [34][35][36][37] It's mentioned rarely and far more sources mention "Tracey Marrow", but I couldn't find anyone calling the middle name inaccurate.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche

The opening paragraph of the article says that LaRouche is "controversial". While LaRouche is most certainly controversial, and it is cited, I still have concerns about calling him controversial in Wikipedia's voice. WP:LABEL discourages the use of such words, and calls for in-text attribution if they are absolutely necessary. WP:LABEL is, of course, only a guideline, but WP:BLP is not. We should be providing examples (with cites, of course) of what others have called LaRouche, rather than labeling him ourselves. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

So many sources call LaRouche controversial that it would take an hour to list them all. The fact that he is controversial is undisputed. The word "controversial" in the first sentence is cited at the end of that sentence. At any rate, the WP:LEAD guideline has us summarize all the radical, criminal and hateful things he's done, as described in the article text and cited sources, and the word "controversial" is therefore an appropriate summary.

I see no reason to hold back. Binksternet (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. This is definitely not a BLP issue. Describing him as "controversial" is the least offensive descriptor we could possibly use. How about Neo-Fascist? There are many sources that dscribe him as such. It's well sourced and not disputed by any credible source. As if Alex Jones isn't a conspiracy theorist and David Duke isn't a Right-wing former KKK Grand Wizard. Facts are facts, and it's absurd to argue that stating the obvious and sourced "controversial" is somehow a BLP issue. Dave Dial (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It's being stated in Wikipedia's voice. It's fine to say, "LaRouche has been 'called' or 'described as' controversial", just as it would be fine to state that he has been called a Neo-Fascist. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Plenty of scholars, political observers and historians have called LaRouche "controversial". However, the man himself published his own biography online which says he ranks "among the most controversial international political figures of his time". LaRouche acknowledges that he is controversial, making the assertion completely uncontroversial. Binksternet (talk) 06:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The extent of good sourcing re "controversial" is so great that it would be inappropriate for us to write that he has (merely) been "called" controversial. The controversy is an objective fact. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

A word like "controversial" is, IMO, misleading. WP:LABEL discourages its use, and for good reason. "Controversial" implies robust debate. Malcolm X, for instance, was "controversial", as he had his supporters as well as detractors. LaRouche–apart from a handful of supporters–is universally dismissed. There seems to be a misunderstanding that I am some kind of apologist for this man. The "least offensive descriptor we could use" should be secondary to accuracy. Providing a scholarly source that calls LaRouche a "Neo-Fascist" would be perfectly fine. Calling him "controversial" in Wikipedia's voice still fails WP:LABEL, and in turn, WP:BLP. We can "sum up all the radical, criminal, hateful things he's done" in a policy-compliant way, and better serve the reader at the same time. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps we need a rule that the word never be used in lede paragraphs, even as a positive compliment. ; perhaps we should go so far as to say it never should be used except in direct quotations. The article should make the meaning clear enough. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

2014 Moncton shootings

This would probably benefit from additional eyes over the next few hours, I've already taken a claim that a BLP was the shooter and modified it to match the source (which designates him a suspect). I've got to head to bed, perhaps some of you in other time zones can keep an eye out. Best, --j⚛e decker ^talk 06:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPCRIME we need to be very careful even identifying suspects.--ukexpat (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes. In this case, I believe the cat is long been well and far out of that bag, the name of the suspect mentioned is plastered in the title of scores of news articles, but in any case, it's probably best to take this discussion to the article. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Gurdeep Singh Bahia

This is biography of mine and please don't delete this article. i am owner of Stark Security Services and by luck i am also a poet in punjabi language — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.253.241.35 (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That article has been deleted already . Cwobeel (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Grace Jones

This article states that Jones "slapped chat show host Russell Harty across the face live on air after he turned to interview other guests and she felt she was being ignored." This is a misrepresentation of what happened. If you view the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpWo15Jc2JQ&feature=kp), you can see that she is not actually angry and in fact playfully whacks Harty several times on the shoulder. He is obviously not being hit hard and is laughing, and the audience is finding it funny too. There is every reason to believe, as many have speculated, that it was a publicity stunt intended to promote an entertaining kind of "personality" for Jones and possibly planned ahead. I think the line as it is written is misleading and should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjstone323 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point, even without looking at the video. Maybe we can find a source that more neutrally describes it better than a celebrity poll blurb. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

In the meantime I removed a bit on the basis that it was too close paraphrasing of the original. As far as your speculation goes that it was a publicity stunt, this interview with her suggests she was legitimately irritated at the time and not acting.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Problem with categorizations of Category:Fraudsters - not all of them are criminals.

The above debate over Management Solutions has led me to notice a significant problem with the categorization scheme. We have a Category:Fraudsters which is itself categorized under Category:Criminals. However, not everyone listed under "Fraudsters" has been convicted of a crime. Many of them have admitted to violations of civil law, but civil violations are, by definition, not criminal and it is factually wrong to describe such people as criminals. The two people involved in the Management Solutions fraud appear to me to be clearly "fraudsters," but if they have not been convicted of a crime, we cannot categorize them under any category which results in them being categorized as criminals.

It only took one click in that category to find another example, Sean David Morton, an undoubtedly-shady bad guy who nonetheless should not have been placed in half a dozen different "criminal" categories when there are no sources to support *any* criminal convictions.

We either need to remove all criminal categories from Category:Fraudsters or come up with an entirely separate non-criminal category for those persons who have been found civilly liable for fraud but not convicted of criminal charges. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Another important example here: Herman Rosenblat - again, he's done some bad things and committed fraud, but he was never so much as arrested/charged with any sort of crime, much less convicted - he is not a criminal in any way, shape or form. We can't categorize him as a criminal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I see NorthBySouthBaranof has sensibly removed Category:Fraudsters from Category:Criminals. This has obviously meant that characters such as Edward Lawrence Levy (fraudster) are now not categorised as criminals. However Category:Fraudsters are still in Category:Fraud which is in Category:Crimes (and others). I expect the CFD folk will declare all these categories as non-defining and will delete them. Thincat (talk) 07:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

We have a very helpful set of Category:$NATIONALITY people convicted of fraud for people who have been convicted of fraud and are properly categorized as criminals. Such persons can be properly dual-categorized. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

79th Street (Manhattan)

While not a BLP per se, I removed a street address from the article as there have been legitimate safety and privacy concerns raised offline regarding its inclusion there. I understand that the address has appeared in reliable sources when Bloomberg was mayor, however there have been recent activities that have led to safety concerns and, per WP:BLPPRIVACY which states "articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons", I removed the street address. The street address has been restored to the article by Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "common knowledge". It may be common knowledge for some people within New York or Manhattan, however I hardly think its inclusion in this article is so fundamental and necessary that WP:BLPPRIVACY should be ignored.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

In BLPs if we err, we should err on the side of caution, so I have deleted that text from the article. Cwobeel (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

So, fine, take off the actual address and cross avenue, but what purpose is served by removing his listing all together? If we follow this logic to its end, we'd be forced to remove ALL geographic based listings of living notable people. More people live along Manhattan's 79th street than in the entire town I grew up in (heck, probably the entire county even!), I think he'll be safe enough if we just list his residence as being somewhere along it without mentioning the exact address.Ashanda (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a little ridiculous. First google hit for "Mayor Bloomberg's house" is a New York Times article which lists the address in the caption of the lead photo. If it's safe for the US's newspaper of record to list the address, then so can we. Gamaliel (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous and a complete overreaction, as well as a misinterpretation of BLP policy. BMK (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

My reaction is the same as Ashanda's: it's OK to leave off the house number, but overkill to pretend the house isn't there. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

House number is removed, keeping the street and the crossing street names. Cwobeel (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

My rationale for removing cross avenues is twofold. First, they're not relevant -- we only need citation that the persons live on 79th street, not where. Second, giving the block/intersection is nearly as good as giving the address -- especially on the UES west of 3rd Ave because the avenue blocks are half the size. I know I wouldn't want strangers knowing my block -- the street, fine, but not the block. Ashanda (talk) 03:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

On the block in question, there are 19 buildings, 6 of which are apartment building, with a total of 51 floors of apartments. There are commercial buildings and institutional buildings, almost all of which are converted townhouses, plus a few that are still residential townhouses. There are therefore a lot of people who live and work on that block, and knowing that Bloomberg lives on it in townhouse is not like knowing that he lives between Green and Maple Street ins Podunk, South Dakota, where there are 8 houses on the block. This is Manhattan, and the scale is much larger than that.

Given that you don't actually have policy on your side, since Bloomberg is, and continues to be, a public figure, and has never made any secret where he lives, that you're pushing this issue is totally ridiculous and bizarre, an outrageous case of BLP overkill. Let it go, please. BMK (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not pushing anything. I haven't been the one you've been having a reversion contest with. I only made a single edit on that article today, matching the compromise I proposed in my post above (the first one defending you in the discussion, I might add). You reverted me without comment, as if I were a vandal. I am a follower of the one or zero revert rule, so rather than edit war, I expressed my puzzlement and offered an explanation first on your talk page, then here when I saw that this discussion had continued. Quite frankly, I find your reply to me to be most uncivil and I do not understand why you're letting yourself get torqued up over electronic bits in a remote mainframe -- there is no deadline, right? Now that the latest edit has removed the street number from the citation itself, I consider the article good enough. P.S. I'm well aware of what Manhattan's like, I live in the mid 80s myself. Ashanda (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thinking of the widow Yoko Ono, I think that it is unwise to include exact street addresses of notable people. If dangerous people find such information elsewhere online, at least the blood is not on Wikipedia's hands. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Half the people in the world know that Yoko Ono lives in The Dakota.

BTW, the leader of the free world lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C., should we not report that? BMK (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Note this edit by Mike Godwin, former chief counsel for WMF. He endorses Cwobeel's take - no street number. BMK (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of John Lennon, not that Yoko Ono still lives there. The White House is the seat of one of the three branches of the U.S. government, and has robust protection. But the names Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy illustrate the grave importance of care in such matters. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It's vitally important to react appropriately when dealing with matters involving living people, but it's also important not to overreact. Let's all keep that in mind, especially in a discussion that mentions Mike Godwin. Gamaliel (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Beyond My Ken - leave the house address off, even ifit is common knowledge. Kosh Vorlon 14:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Question, what is the encyclopedic value in publishing the exact residential address of a controversial politician who already requires his own private team of bodyguards? In particular, how is the reader's encyclopedic knowledge of 79th Street in New York City substantively enhanced by knowing exactly which house is Bloomberg's? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Management Solutions Inc

Although the article is about a company, I consider it a BLP, as the company is essentially under the control of two named individuals, and almost all of the the material concerns them specifically .

This was nominated for speedy deletion with the rationale "not true at all". I've brought it here, because it seems an article that needs some discussion. If it had been written by a new single purpose account, I might simply have deleted it as an "attack page", but it was written by an established editor, and has some reliable secondary documentation., as well as a mass of primary sources. However, the contents consists of wildly excessive negative detail, with the headings used not neutrally, but as points of an indictment. along with inappropriate use of bold, italics, and full caps.

I still think it merits deletion as an attack page unless drastically and immediately edited, but I bring it here because an experienced editor should know better than to write such an article. I informed the ed. of this discussion. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

My opinion - WP:BLOWITUP. Too much primary sourced stuff and legal trivia in there for it to hang around. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

As BLP applies everywhere I've stubbed the article to the existing intro. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLOWITUP indeed. Cwobeel (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This page is about the tenth largest fraud, in the history of this type of crime. I undid NeilN's edit as it was not in any way substantiated, as the sources upon the pages have been. The source for this has been the US Federal Government, Pacer, as well as trusted publications such as the Wall Street Journal. It is wrong to just remove everything as user NielN had while this is under review. For a review of similar pages see Bernard Madoff this was a HALF BILLION DOLLAR FRAUD, and should provide the same level of detail that the referenced case provides, as the two are not that far apart in context. Regarding the tone, it is a legal case about two people that HAVE ALREADY HAD A JUDGEMENT ENTERED IN THE US FEDERAL COURTS UPON THEM! This is NOT about a case that is still under judicial review but in fact it has ALREADY had a judgment entered upon them by a US Federal Judge. talk→ WPPilot 03:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

And I've removed everything using primary sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the vast majority of the 160+ references in the Madoff article are secondary sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

NeilN has now militated the story to a incomprehensive state. The media has a TON of more the creditable refs that could have been used to replace the court docs, and remove any perceived concerns. I suggest that a admin restore it, so it can be fixed, or IMHO, NeilN has ruined the whole thing with his arbitrary data removal. talk→ WPPilot 04:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

But we don't want stuff like

Westfield Estates, L.P. interest $6,000, * Furnishings of Red Stag Condo, Deer Valley, Utah $5,500, * Management Masters Building, Logan, Utah $37,080, * 80th South Office Building, Rexburg, Idaho $21,984, * Furnishings of Fountain Green, Utah Office Building $59,292, * Sports memorabilia, African art, and pistols $3,477, * Settlement on Blue Jay Apartments, Carrington Place $143,000, * IBIS Distribution $5,340,582, * Settlement with NBH Bank (formerly Bank Midwest) $100,000, * Escena Park Apartments $6,137,124, * 2008 GMC Sierra Truck $15,300, * 2007 Cadillac Escalade $24,100, * Furniture from Starwood Management $3,500, * Interest in Green Oaks Plaza LP $20,000, * Distribution from Appalachian Self Storage, LLC $30,000, * Distribution from Goodsell Family LLC $8,400, * Garden Terrace Apartments, Gadsden, Alabama $189,675, * Parcel 54, Las Colinas, Texas $554,391, Cemetery Lots, Fountain Green, Utah $5,300, * Redemption of Life Insurance Policy on Wendell Jacobson $129,295, * Redemption of Life Insurance Policy on Evan Jacobson $152,605, * Discovery Grove Office Building, Utah County, Utah $612,344, * 70% interest in Escena Properties, Ltd. $5,500,000, * Wendell Jacobson residence, Fountain Green, Utah $372,176

in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Then why did you remove almost EVERYTHING, you removed the fact that a judgment was entered, you claim that a SEC press release is not allowed, (according to who?) but another press release as it is a court document???? The story is no longer in any way a accurate representation of the matter, a HALF BILLION DOLLAR FRAUD, rather it is a dis jointed and in no way shape of form up to date. Please restore it using the links that I have provided.talk→ WPPilot 05:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I will be declining your invitation as I feel that even if properly sourced, the previous version contains too much detail. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You would rather that the story is incorrect, do not reflect that fact that it was settled, and that the receiver have already liquidated the estate, and you are going to make me restore it to reflect factual correctness? Do you mind if I ask if you are somehow connected to this matter? talk→ WPPilot 05:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Bernard Madoff Largest Fraud Ever Management Solutions Inc 10th largest fraud ever

Do you see the problem here? talk→ WPPilot 05:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I would rather relevant, summarized content be added rather than going back to the mess you seem to prefer. And, as DGG characterized that version as an "attack page", I think any questions of COI would be directed towards you. However I believe this is a case of over-enthusiasm for exposing the "bad guys" rather than COI. For the record, I've never heard of this matter. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I simply suggest that to correct it with out trial and tribulation it be restored to allow a practical restoration. I have archived the old version and found that you have removed far more links that were more then adequate in your dissection of the page. talk→ WPPilot 05:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that there are no criminal charges or convictions, therefore using any category or infobox such as "criminal" is a gross violation of BLP. They were sued and settled under civil laws - thus what they did was illegal, but not criminal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I've also moved the page to Management Solutions as there is no need for "Inc" in the page title. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Being successfully sued in a civil court doesn't mean that the relevant actions were "illegal", merely that they gave rise to a cause of action under civil law. "Illegal" means prohibited by law. Whether "illegal" actions are also "criminal" depends on whether a prosecution and conviction ensues.--ukexpat (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

In SEC civil cases, often the cases will work through the civil process before any criminal prosecution, with criminal charges being filed, once the civil case closes. ""Illegal" means prohibited by law." The charge, is/was/always has been: Fraud Fraud "the deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain". As a legal construct, fraud is both a civil wrong (i.e., a fraud victim may sue the fraud perpetrator to avoid the fraud and/or recover monetary compensation) and a criminal wrong. That is under both US Federal laws: 18 U.S. Code § 1348, as well as (in this case) Utah state law, you can not simply separate the two. The judgment was already entered. The FBI was one of the agencies that participated in the original raid. talk→ WPPilot 16:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact remains that the persons in question have not been criminally charged, much less convicted - until and unless they are, we cannot so describe them. We can and will "separate the two" because a judgment of civil liability is not the same as a judgment of criminal guilt. Unless you have a reliable source which states that they have been convicted of a crime, they are not criminals and cannot be described as criminals, the end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

[off on a tangent] Clearly an illegal act can give rise to both civil and criminal actions. But my point was a more basic one - if I breach a contract, I may be liable in a civil court but my action is not per se illegal. Anyway, while an interesting jurisprudential discussion, it's not on topic for present purposes.--ukexpat (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The conversation is in regard to cites, that are usable in a Wiki. Many of the citations that I had previously referenced were removed and a half billion dollar fraud, reduced to only 2 paragraphs. The story was as mentioned well sourced and considering the size and scope of this matter one would have to compare it to other "security fraud operations" that have been uncovered in the last few years. What is a reference? Is a SEC press release a "Court Document" as per BLP or is it something that can be quoted here?

See:

With the Madoff page establishing a top of the scale standard, it cites 163 sources The second two are far far far smaller, in dollar amounts but the details in the page at least tell the readers digest version of the big picture, while the largest fraud ever in the state of Utah, has been reduced to a few detached paragraphs. Refs: The receiver has a website that he also posts info about the case upon, as well as every court document. http://managementsolutionsreceivership.com/developments.html, why was that data removed? Does it not qualify for use as ref for some reason? talk→ WPPilot 18:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

talk→ WPPilot 18:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)PS, the current version reads like the whole thing was just a big mistake. The editor that created this new mess omits key details such as the fact that the judgment was already entered. That the ruling on the Ponzi also stated that it is a "giant real estate offering fraud". It no longer mentions any of the actual facts in the case and really has been written to make it sound like this is just a little misunderstanding. That could not be further from the truth according to the Judge, the media and the SEC.

You listed three articles above. The percentage of primary sources (including any SEC or DOJ documents) found in each is respectively roughly 8%, 2%, and 2%. Your version of the article in question had roughly 56%, sourcing whole swathes of text. The article can be expanded, using proper secondary sources and omitting text like:

"March 1, 2013, the SEC released an ORDER INSTITUTING ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, MAKING FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS in the matter of WENDELL A. JACOBSON.[25]

The Commission finds that Jacobson was the whole owner, founder, and controlling person of Management Solutions, Inc., and had partnership interests in numerous other entities that own and manage over 8,000 units in apartment complexes located in eleven different states. Jacobson has never been registered with the Commission or held any securities licenses. Jacobson, 58 years old, is a resident of Fountain Green, Utah.

On December 18, 2012, a final judgment was entered by consent against Jacobson, permanently enjoining him from future violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Management Solutions, Inc., et al., Civil Action Number 2:11-CV-1165, in the United States District Court for the District of Utah."

Wikipedia is not a law journal. We rely on secondary sources to tell us what is important, in summarized form. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Bryan Cranston

A discussion is underway about whether Anime News Network's encyclopedia section—which has previously been declared unreliable because of its user-generated content (WP:A&M/RS#Situational)—can be used to cite voice acting credits. The discussion is currently taking place at Talk:Bryan Cranston#ANN's encyclopedia. —Farix (t | c) 13:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Rahil Gupta

I think there's some meat-puppetting going on to promote the subject and his business using press releases and other self-published sources, but I'm out of reverts. Can someone take a look? Discussion --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The bot got it. I restored the notability tag. User is getting the average counsel already so I didn't add anything. Okteriel (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. The "out of reverts" phrase was an expression of my frustration at having to deal with meatpuppets. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Another new account; I've reported one of them at AN3. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Karl von Habsburg

The page claims that Karl von Habsburg is the "Imperial Prince and Archduke of Austria, Royal Prince of Hungary and Bohemia" and head of the "Austrian Imperial Family".

This fact is not true, as Royal and noble titles were abolished in Austria and Hungary by the Adelsaufhebungsgesetz of 3 April 1919(link to law), as written in the first note in the article.

It is memorable, that the german version of the article claims none of these things, as stating this in Austria would result in a fine.

The sources used to support the use of the title are futile, as the only aplicable source is Austrian law.

Several members of the Habsburg family have their "royal titles" in their wikipedia biographies, even though those are not factual correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.118.241.77 (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the mention of the illegality of the use of royal titles to the lede, but these titles have to be kept as he uses them in other countries where it is not illegal, and thus notable for inclusion. Cwobeel (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it is absolutely and without question or exception true that he is all those things. He can't officially use those titles in Austria, but he is 100% entitled to use them anywhere else on the planet in any way he wishes. Austrian law has no effect in the world outside Austria. --NellieBly (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Sigmund Freud

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prof Peter Gay of Yale University, a living author, has written a well-received biography about Sigmund Freud which is referenced on the wikipage for Sigmund Freud, and which appears to be intentionally distorting the discussion which Prof Peter Gay makes of Freud never having become a regular Professor. The editor making the incorrect attribution in the Lede to Prof Peter Gay, a living author, has refused to present the full quotation from the book by Prof Peter Gay which he/she is referring to, since Prof Peter Gay never claims that Freud became a regular professor. Another editor, User:Casliber has generously suggested that the reference be changed to the Correct German version which refers to Freud as an a.o. in German, however this has been rejected by User:Almancer. The consensus of scholarly research on Freud since the early biography by Ernst Jones, to the biography on Freud by Anthony Storr of Oxford University, up to the biography by Prof Peter Gay have accepted that Freud never became a regular professor, but only an a.o.: Freud's own preferred self-reference was consistently as "Dr Sigmund Freud". Since Prof Peter Gay is a living author, the misrepresentation of his very clear position that Freud never became a regular professor represents a BLP violation, since the current Wikipage for Freud alleges Prof Peter Gay as representing a position which he does not endorse. The Freud Page is currently locked and the BLP issue should be remedied as quickly as possible. This report is not copying the misquotation here as instructed on this noticeboard instructions, and the wikilink to the Page and its associated Talk page is provided here: Sigmund Freud. FelixRosch (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems quite fair. He certainly qualified as a doctor of medicine in 1881. But note that Penelope Balough, in her 1971 book Freud, writes:

"In September 1885 he was made Privatdozent - a term which had no counterpart in Anglo-Saxon medical establishments. For Freud it involved writing a thesis on the anatomy of the medulla, and of being examined orally by three professors. He also had to give a public lecture, and a formal clearance of his character with the police headquarters was required."

I think the term might roughly translate as "outside lecturer" or possibly "unaffiliated lecturer". But whatever, this was of course when Freud was only 29, long before his 1902 honorary award of außerordentlicher Professor. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

FelixRosch you really need to read and understand Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle - as its an ongoing problem on multiple pages. You need to talk about the bold changes that you have made that got reverted (as we stick with the stable version until a new consensus is formed). You dont just keep reverting over and over when people are talking about the problem even if the other editor is doing the same. I will take the time today and start a RfC in a bit.-- Moxy (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is this discussion at the biography of living persons noticeboard? Please have the discussion at Talk page and pursue dispute resolution. This is not the right forum. Cwobeel (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) It seems to hinge on a misinterpretation of the views of "Prof Peter Gay of Yale University, a living author". But, yes, I was wondering the same thing. We're only 75 years too late. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Faheem Ansari

Faheem Ansari (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Even though the subject of the article was acquitted by The Court, most of the article treats him as guilty citing a single source. Hence, either the article should be deleted or purged.

In short, the content, as present, is libellous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.221.243.26 (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

He was acquitted of one charge but still charged for others. I have added the acquittal to the lede. Cwobeel (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

James Purtill, St. Norbert Football Coach

Please correct the following: 2002 season - SNC did not play in the ncaa national play-offs. Delete the comment on losing in the playoffs. Also, that would make Jim Purtill's playoff record 1-10, not 1-11. Thank you

This can be verified on the SNC football website under schedules, 2002 shows no games played after the season final. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:770e:99f0:d464:22ce:e101:39e0 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 7 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Joaquín Santiago

Can someone determine thoroughly if Joaquín Santiago is a hoax or not? The article is heavily laden with [not in citation given]s, and I was unable to find any sources for him, only false positives that happened to have the words "joaquin" and "santiago" next to each other. There was also some dubious-looking content that I removed about Joaquin from Teatro Puerto Rico because I couldn't find anything corroborating it. On the other hand, the picture at Sara Montiel claims that the other person in the photo is Joaquin Santiago. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

My father is no hoax and I am not a liar. I am not sure, but I believe that you or someone else emailed me under the name of Roberto Blondet, claiming to admire my work and asking questions about my father's article and that if the theater. I did not write his article and do appreciate the fact that someone did. It is difficult to find these old 1950s sources, but I do have the clippings from some old Hispanic papers and photos (A little yellowish) in my possession. If anyone here is interested and if they have a fax number I can fax them or mail copies and you can see for yourself that my dad was the real deal. Maybe you can give me a idea on how to use them as a source. Yes, my father was the MC when Sarita Montiel was presented. I uploaded the photo: File:J.Santiago and S. Montiel.jpg and yes, do not doubt me when I state that "the picture at Sara Montiel claims that the other person in the photo is Joaquin Santiago." One of the Teatro's documents which I did upload was File:Teatro Puerto Rico Flyersmall.JPG where you can see my dad's name. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Article was placed on AFD @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joaquín Santiago Cwobeel (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer: Online sources may be hard to find, but it does not seem to be a hoax. Cwobeel (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Offline sources are showing to be just as hard. The article cited a lot of books, but it turns out those books do not support at all the claims they were supposed to be referencing. What's left for us? --damiens.rf 19:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Damiens.rf: Nothing that a trip to a library with microfiche archives can't solve. Add ((cn)) or ((Verify source)) where needed (unless material is contentious), and let editors look for and find sources. Cwobeel (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel:, I don't believe we keep WP:BLP filled with unsourced material and just wait for them to appear. --damiens.rf 19:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If the material is contentious, delete at sight. If not contentious, you have a choice: delete it if it bugs you and copy it to talk for sourcing, or just tag it with the appropriate templates. It is an editorial decision. In my opinion, I would use the latter approach. Cwobeel (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

What would remain from this article if we move all unreferenced content to talk, @Cwobeel:? --damiens.rf 18:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Sabet

Kevin Sabet's bio used to read like a self-promoting blog. It reads like a blog with few verifiable references. He will likely revert edits/deletions made, but he should not be allowed to compromise Wiki's standards for his own gain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9711CA (talk • contribs) 05:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I have tagged the page accordingly. It definitively needs some cleanup. Cwobeel (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux wife naming

There's a dispute about whether it violates BLP to mention the name of Stefan Molyneux's wife, and discuss certain matters about the couple. Please see Stefan Molyneux#Family members. One author has also suggested on my talk page, that I can not even mention her name in quotes from reliable sources when placed on a talk page. --Rob (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPTALK: "When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot." It is a simple matter to redact names while discussing whether it is appropriate to name them on Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 21:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm annoyed, but not hugely concerned with the redacting on the talk page. Hopefully neutral editors can contribute to the discussion that matters on the article talk page. --Rob (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

BLP1E does not apply here, but WP:NPF might. It's not "forbidden" to mention people's names in talk pages, the injunction in the policy is against inappropriate edits (potentially defamatory, grossly insulting, etc). If the wife's name is a matter of public record given available sources then it's disingenuous to claim she cannot be mentioned in the context of a discussion about her husband when the content in question refers to something they were both involved in. Unless someone can claim there is some kind of real-world threat or problem, in which case WP:OVERSIGHT should be the first place to go. As to whether her name should be included in the article, that's up to you guys to work out. I wouldn't see a problem with simply wording it as "Molyneux's wife" rather than including the full name. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm basing my cautiousness on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Where BLP does and does not apply ""BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages,..." I think its prudent while discussing that we give the presumption in favor of privacy. -- Netoholic @ 22:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand. The BLP policy applies everywhere, but you're not interpreting it correctly if your objection is to the simple mention of the wife's name in the context of a discussion that involves her. BLPNAME and NPF were not designed to prevent discussion about subjects or people associated with them, they're intended to keep them off articles. Technically you are right, but you're over extending the spirit of the policy, I think. Nonetheless the editor has stated above that they are not concerned with having their comments redacted, so there's that. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Why a thread should be opened here is confusing to me. This noticeboard is for editing disputes "about living people over an extended period." No such extended period has occurred. Moreover, no mention on the article talk page was given about this thread. (A notice has been posted just now.) I suggest that this thread be closed with advice to continue thrashing out the BLP issues on the article talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 05:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Fred Swaniker

Reads very much like someone's resume. This person is neither famous nor exceptional by any measure. Self-publicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.191.2.16 (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the tone could be improved but he does prima facie appear to be notable per the guidelines at WP:BIO.--ukexpat (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Benjamin Wey

The article looks to be a fluff piece, it leaves off important details, such as his home and office having been raided by the FBI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthhurtsguy (talk • contribs) 03:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no comment on the second half of what you say. But I agree: The article looks to be a fluff piece. -- Hoary (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I've revised "Benjamin Wey" (though it's still largely unsourced, and two of the five sources that are provided are junk). -- Hoary (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This article (about a person I'd never heard of till I noticed this thread yesterday) needs attention from other experienced editors. It currently has four sources, one of which is indisputably junk; another of which is arguably junk. (Much of its content is simply unsourced.) Yesterday I added a small amount of material sourced to something at nytimes.com; this has since been removed by Lyndasim (who, I now notice, created the original article, incidentally citing the very same nytimes.com piece). Please comment on the article's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

narendra modi

The article mentioned that "He is a controversial figure both within India as well as internationally[4][5][6][7] as his administration has been criticised for the incidents surrounding the 2002 Gujarat riots."

The fact is He is the prime minister of India with a huge fan base and people are watching his every movement as heroic.

My suggestion is please change the words to "He has been targeted as a controversial figure by left wing political parties like Indian National Congress and its counterparts and the associated media's in India as well as wrong reports spread out by Foriegn media internationally[4][5][6][7] as his administration has been failed for controlling the incidents surrounding the 2002 Gujarat riots." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renjithmn0 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that says that he "has been targeted". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Ricardo Duchesne

Single-purpose IP busy with figuring out which way best to smear the person.

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

In one of those links, the IP cites a source. It's an article of moderate length, from a mainstream news source. Arguably it's unencyclopedic to merely be "facing complaints". (The question is, do the complaints have any result?) But I think it's unfair to describe the IP as "busy with figuring out which way best to smear the person". An editor could reasonably believe that a short mention of this is encyclopedia-worthy (as it's well sourced), especially when accompanied by a citation of that source. -- Hoary (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

But would you say that this phrasing constitutes an objective attempt at catching the essence of the debate? RD is, in reality, neither "under investigation" by anybody (passive voice!), nor is it in any way proven or agreed upon that his remarks were "racist" and that he made "hate" blog posts. This is all rather fancied up by the IP who adopts the allegations of Jang as his own. I would call this one-sidedness so extreme to be defamatory, particularly since the first two edits by the IP demonstrate how he deliberately aims to get the angle which smears the most.

Besides, I think it is still to early to call the dispute relevant at all (and if it may become at one point so, Kerry Jang would need some expansion, too) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

But would you say that this phrasing constitutes an objective attempt at catching the essence of the debate? It could be. If it is, it's not very good. Very many edits to Wikipedia aren't very good. I don't rush to discount good faith. ¶ "He is currently under investigation" is not the passive voice. (The passive is expertly described here.) And even if it were the passive, so what? (The extraordinary and mostly irrational dislike among "language mavens" of the real and imagined passive is also described here.) ¶ Considering the paucity of the data, it's extraordinary how certain you claim to be of the motivation of the writer. -- Hoary (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This is because the biography has a long history of being subjected to defamatory accusations, so WP:AGF is kind of obsolete. "Being under investigation" may not be technically passive voice, but without detailing "by whom" it factually is. This is unencyclopedic; usually the subject (grammar) needs to be defined. But in this case the point is there is none. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

If the argument is "The bio has a long history of being subjected to defamatory accusations; therefore any edit that is compatible with a defamatory accusation (irrespective of its compatibility with any alternative, such as a desire to add significant information) is a defamatory accusation", then I disagree. ¶ I don't understand the concept of a "factual" passive voice, as opposed to the actual passive voice (as understood by linguists). "Being under investigation" doesn't appear in the edit; what does appear is "He is currently under investigation". This is a very simple sentence; in common with the huge majority of sentences of English it has a subject: "he". While it's the subject, "he" is not the agent (aka actor); and I'll guess that it's agency that you want. (The assertion implies that some person or body is investigating him; who or what is this?) ¶ The cited source, "Prof faces complaint after ‘white guilt’ remark", doesn't include the string "investigat", and doesn't bring news of anything that could obviously be termed a formal investigation. The closest thing that I notice is Jang said the University of New Brunswick should reconsider whether it wants to have Duchesne on campus. “I would not feel safe [attending there] knowing that someone like that was on faculty,” he said. One might guess from this that "Vancouver Coun. Kerry Jang" believes that UNB should investigate the conduct of its employee. However, the article doesn't say this, there's no hint in the article that UNB (or anyone else) is conducting a formal investigation of Duchesne's conduct. ¶ Therefore the edit is sloppily written at best, and can reasonably be described as factually wrong. No reason to posit a writer "figuring out which way best to smear the person", and no reason to bring in grammatical commentary. -- Hoary (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

RFC on Chris McDaniel

I invite you to take place in an RFC on Chris McDaniel. THe RFC directly relates to WP:BLP. You can take place here. Thanks for your time.Casprings (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Jay Tavare's Birthdate is incorrect

I noticed that Jay Tavare listed his birthday falsely again. His actual birthday is August 23, 1958. I've seen proof of his real birthdate on his drivers license. He is actually 56 yrs old and not 41!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:2185:6800:1293:E9FF:FE5E:F38C (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the birthdate from the article since it is not cited to any source. Gamaliel (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Maureen Dowd

A perennial favourite of this noticeboard, Maureen Dowd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), has just become the recipient of the latest cannabis-related incident. The problem is that the latest addition regarding this incident comprises one quarter of the size of the BLP, making it a case of WP:UNDUE, at least imo. Any advice would be much appreciated. Thank you. I am also concerned with edits such as these, not to mention refs using titles such as "Maureen Dowd Got Way Too High and Freaked Out". Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit unbalanced perhaps due to recentism issues, but it isn't particularly negative, and checking the sources, rather accurately represents Dowd's experience and the reaction to it. It's not perfect, but I also don't see it as an OMG FIX THIS NOW! type problem. Perhaps some minor editing to tighten it up a bit, but that's a normal expectation of all articles, and doesn't seem to be a particular BLP issue, especially given that the material is not negative nor apparently misrepresentative of the situation. --Jayron32 03:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

But I think one quarter of the BLP dedicated to this incident is a bit too much. YMMV of course. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

A bit too much, yes. But there is nothing wrong with the "freak out" titles.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Somehow, "Freaking Out" doesn't sound too encyclopedic to me. This makes the source sound not too reliable. But that's just my opinion. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

One-fourth of a BLP on this one incident is ridiculous. WP:UNDUE, to be precise. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. At least, I'm glad to see Collect did a great job taming the beast. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Since my last comment, the section got bloated again and I removed some of the bloat. BTW, the addition of the candy incident section in the BLP has been covered by the cannabist website. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I realize it has half-decent sources, but I think this is one of those things where the sources (the press) have a very different editorial mission than Wikipedia that cause it to focus on subjects that are entertaining or humorous, but of little encyclopedic value. As of its state right now, I think it could still be cut in half. CorporateM (Talk) 05:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

BLPTALK at Banc De Binary archive

I deleted a statement where one user calls another user (who is the CEO of the article subject company) an outright criminal, based on only a pending investigation and with no sources. Another editor reverted me and suggested I get assistance. It's my understanding that BLP even applies to talk archives and that 3RR is waived. Can you assist please?

Please keep in mind that accusations have come frequently in this topic area and so I disclosed the fact that I have communicated before with the CEO in question. Also, as the other editor objected, I have been very bold in my understanding of BLPTALK and use of ((cn)) in talk similar to ((interrupted)), and I would appreciate any advice you can give on that related question. Okteriel (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, would you look at that, two in a row, it's the same editor who posted the immediately previous section. I didn't look at his other reversions but I would remind him that there is no such thing on Wikipedia as reverting until one is "out of reverts", as that seems to telegraph intent to continue. But I think I will look at those reverts anyway, certainly it helps to avoid the SPA charges. Okteriel (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

NeilN and I are editing pretty harmoniously right now, and we have both left off on a stable version of talk, but the question still stands. Should I strike through or delete probable BLP on talk, including BLPGROUP for small corps where too much negativity reflects on the principals? Okteriel (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I just deleted BLP violation by User:Nagle. Apparently, this really is a live issue. There is also an ANI thread. Please make a suggestion. Okteriel (talk) 08:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The "ANI thread" referenced by Okteriel WP:BOOMERANGed into his/her being blocked as part of a sock farm maintained by the company, and have struck his comments per WP:EVADE. The so-called "Nagle BLP violation" was reverted even before that, and his other comments have no merit whatsoever. Coretheapple (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Footballer honours section

What about edits like these. Removing unreferenced honours, which in most cases are easy to source and are not negative to the person. Are these encouraged per BLP? There is a longer discussion at the football wikiproject. Low profile football obviously, but think of someone deleting Lionel_Messi#Honours. Thanks for opinions. -Koppapa (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Better to use the "comment" code, so that the text is still present but doesn't appear to readers. If someone challenges something for being unsourced, it shouldn't appear until there's a source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It has been argued that the material should be tagged and that synthesis can be used to determine if the information is correct. Either the award is listed and the player is listed there, with a reference, or the season is listed indicating the team has won the stated award, and references exist to show that the player was on the team at the time of the award are also present. It's clearly disruptive editing using BLP as a cover. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

To quote from WP:BLP:

"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

To also quote from Jimbo:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

Removing any and all unreferenced content about BLPs - whether that is positive or negative - should be our prerogative, and that is what I am doing, nothing more and nothing less. Giant Snowman 17:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

What would you think re my suggestion to use the comment function instead of wholesale deletion? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that - yes, a possible compromise if a deadline can be agreed on deleting the content fully if left commented-out for, say, 3 months without sourcing? Giant Snowman 17:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The material that is removed, unlike the edits, are not contentious. I would like to see a the definition of contentious in relation to BLP and how stating that a player on a team won a championship playing with a team meets that definition.

As for comments and dating changes, I would rather see the use of a existing dated templates should be used, but removal is clearly unconstructive without adequate discussion.

As for "unsourced", the definition is too narrow. We have traditionally allowed links to sourced material to suffice as a source. So if the player is known to have played on a team during a particular season, and the team won an award that season, and the award links to the article supporting that, I would argue that this is a sufficient reference. At the discussion in the football project, I linked to several prominent articles where this suffices and GiantSnowman has not removed the material. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

But the content is contentious - it is being challenged/called into doubt, is it not? The fact you continue to state that the removal of unsourced content about BLPs is "unconstructive" (and you went one step further at WT:FOOTY, calling my edits "disruptive") shows a deep and concerning lack of understanding about how BLP actually works. Giant Snowman 18:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The only person to whom this material is contentious is you. And yet at least three editors have told you that your edits are bad form at the very least.

Most importantly, and this is the point that you seem to be missing, the material is referenced, it's just not referenced with a ref tag.

And oddly, you are selecting obscure player articles as targets and you don't go after those player articles that have obvious fan appeal because you know you'll be out-numbered.

Finally, and this is the other thing you have completely failed to mention, every case where you have deleted this material, it has been restored and references have been provided.

The solution, therefore, is not to remove it but to tag it as requiring references, and then remove it after a reasonable amount of time provided that no references have been provided.

What's more: GiantSnowman's sanctimonious position on this is so far from laudable, I cannot express my dismay in strong enough terms. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I fully support this edit. Anyone should have the freedom to remove unsourced information from any article, much more so a BLP, whether it is positive or negative. I don't advocate running roughshod through a hundred thousand articles and removing every single bit of unsourced information, but either we have policies that cover this kind of stuff and actually follow them, or we don't. It's up to the editors who want the information to remain to source it (since it's apparently easy to do), or leave it off altogether. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I think "contentious" isn't something you can create out of thin air by saying "I contest this". You have to *genuinely* doubt it for it to be contentious in any meaningful sense. Just objecting to it because you can type the words saying you object doesn't make it contentious. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the above comment re contentiousness. If this was the correct definition, the term "contentious" would be essentially redundant. Looking at the context in which the word contentious is used, it would seem to imply some level of controversy or dubiousness to the material which does not seem appropriate here. Further, deleting such information would seem to be in direct contradiction of WP:Preserve. In fact, WP:V states that whether/how quickly material should be removed depends on: "the material and the overall state of the article". Given that the relevant material is usually uncontroversial (and often easy to reference) it would seem that immediate deletion is too harsh a response, and, as WP:V puts it "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step". Macosal (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Please then, both of you, how would you define "contentious" - it's a mad world if an editor challenging unreferenced material about a BLP is no longer sufficient. Giant Snowman 09:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, "contentious" in the context it is being used suggests that information is likely to be controversial, or has good reason to be challenged (hence the importance of citations for such information). Things such as the international goals statistics you have been deleting would seem to be hardly contentious for example, in that there is no logical argument for why they are false or should be challenged other than that they are unreferenced. As the above user stated, there is the need for some genuine doubt or question-ability rather than merely unreferenced information.

You still haven't really addressed why WP:Preserve doesn't apply here, regardless of what "contentious" means. Macosal (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

A subsection of PRESERVE, WP:CANTFIX, states that "Special care needs to be taken with biographies of living people, especially when it comes to handling unsourced or poorly sourced claims about the subject." BLP trumps PRESERVE. Giant Snowman 13:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no conflict between the two sections. There is no logical reason why an editor can't "do a quick search for sources and add a citation yourself" and "Take special care with biographies of living people". Macosal (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN is on those adding the information/wanting to keep it. Giant Snowman 13:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

True, but as that section says re removal: "Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article... If you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." Macosal (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

...and I prefer to be safe rather than sorry and remove rather than tag. If it's so easy for you to verify, then it shouldn't be a problem. Giant Snowman 14:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The first question you should be asking according to WP:Burden is not "remove or tag" but before that "cite or remove/tag". WP:Burden states that when you think material is verifiable, you have an obligation to try to cite rather than remove. It is easy to verify, but willing editors will have trouble editing uncontroversial content which is no longer there. Macosal (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Which is why the solution we've already identified above (use the comment function) is pretty attractive. Not sure why there's a need to carry on here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It's obviously not good enough for them... Giant Snowman 15:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that. Whilst I don't see it as ideal, it is at least closer to Wikipedia policy and preserves (to some limited degree) material. One issue I would have is that if the material was ever to be deleted, it should still be subject to WP:Burden: material that is easy to verify should not be deleted with no attempt at referencing. The reason I personally have continued discussion on this topic is that GiantSnowman has both defended his "right" to delete the material and has actually continued to delete material from many articles since Nomoskedasticity's suggestion was made. Macosal (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I said I would be happy to implement it if we could agree on an appropriate timescale for deletion if it remains unreferenced for X months - but my query has been ignored. Will 1 week suffice, given that it is so "easy to verify" this material? Until there is such agreement/consensus I will continue to remove unreferenced honours from BLPs. Giant Snowman 16:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The suggestion is certainly not without issues. How would editors know where to find these hidden, soon to be removed sections? Would such a policy effectively be a loophole in WP:Preserve? This would seem to constitute a new policy almost entirely where current policies already exist. Additionally, as per WP: Burden and WP:Preserve you may not delete material unless you attempt to reference it first, regardless of this discussion. Macosal (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

That is an incorrect conclusion for BLPs. Unreferenced material can and should be deleted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

What is the basis for this (policies/guidelines)? Are you saying all unreferenced material is "contentious"? Why do WP:Preserve and WP:Burden not apply? Macosal (talk) 01:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP trumps them, and BLP states that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." How many times will I have to quote that until you start to understand? Giant Snowman 08:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP is not in conflict with WP:Preserve or WP:Burden (and nowhere does it say both should not apply - why shouldn't they? Just because material is about living people it can be deleted with no attempt at referencing? That is not logical nor desirable). Further, you appear to be defining all material as "contentious", which in the context of the policy is clearly not the intention. Macosal (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That quote from BLP was obviously too long for you to handle, let me provide you with a shorter version - "Contentious material [...] whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable." Do you see that? 'Contentious' does not exclusively 'negative'! Not all material is contentious but all material can be contentious. Giant Snowman 09:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

How, for example and by your definition, then, is Jordi Alba winning UEFA Euro 2012 and scoring in the UEFA Euro 2012 final "contentious" (both of which you removed)? I would suggest that information is in fact obvious, and a very quick search confirms both to be true. You also did not explain why WP:Preserve cannot also be applied in conjunction with WP:BLP. Macosal (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Because I view all unreferenced material about BLPs as contentious and therefore eligible for removal on sight. Editors need to learn to reference their own material and not rely on others to do it for them. I don't have time to go tidying up after everyone. Giant Snowman 10:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

In context, that definition of "contentious" cannot be correct. If you look at WP:BLP it is clear that referencing or lack thereof does not define what is "contentious" or not. It is the material which needs to be contentious, not the mere fact that it has not been referenced. Under your reading, all material on wikipedia is "contentious", just some of it has been referenced - that would seem an excessive view. Macosal (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

As I have already stated, "not all material is contentious but all material can be contentious." Giant Snowman 10:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

And as you then went on to state "I view all unreferenced material about BLPs as contentious". If this were true, WP:BLP would essentially read "unsourced material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced... should be removed." Clearly that would be a tautology, and not what the word "contentious" is there to communicate. Macosal (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Which is what it does say. You are getting too hung-up on the "contentious" element when you have already been told, by numerous editors who have far more experience in BLP, that my edits are fine. Giant Snowman 10:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The word contentious is there for a reason (to avoid problems such as this where obvious material is senselessly deleted). "Numerous" would here seem to mean two - not that numbers are supposed to matter, but that's significantly less than the number who have argued against these edits both on this thread and the other. At its heart, there is no reason why you should remove the material - it would seem deconstructive, unproductive and unnecessary. Macosal (talk) 11:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Unreferenced material does not conform to one of the most basic policies, WP:V. Removal of such material is justified, particularly on BLPs. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There are relevant procedures for dealing with such material. Not all material is justified in deletion. As per WP:BLP for immediate deletion, material must be contentious. Macosal (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

And I'm stating this material is contentious. It clearly is, given the debate we are having around it! Giant Snowman 11:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

This debate is about the meaning/interpretation of contentious, not whether the material is contentious or not (that sort of logic is circular and not based on fact). Look to what Ken Arromdee said earlier in the conversation: Are you arguing that it is "contentious", for example that Brendan Rodgers has won Premier League Manager of the Month? Macosal (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Not any more. Giant Snowman 12:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I know, but when you first deleted it, was there any reason to doubt it, or call it "contentious"? As SG73 said there in edit descriptions, "he clearly won". Macosal (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information - do you do know that don't you? We cannot just make assumptions, however obvious they may seem. Giant Snowman 12:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion is not the only option when faced with non-contentious, obvious but unreferenced information. Try to reference it yourself, or add a tag. I have already outlined the relevant guidelines to this (WP:Preserve or look in WP:V itself!). For material to be deleted immediately it needs to be contentious (not obvious), as per WP:BLP. Macosal (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

We're going round in cicles here and it's getting us nowhere. Three editors vastly more experienced in BLP matters than yourself (myself, FreeRangeFrog, and Nomoskedasticity) have said it is fine to remove this information. Giant Snowman 12:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not a strong argument to rely on who is arguing something rather than how it is being argued (this would be an ad hominem argument) (as it happens, far more have argued against these deletions than for them). You have still not addressed in any way why WP:Preserve should not apply in conjunction with WP:BLP, why it is desirable for "contentious" to extend to all unreferenced material, or why these sections should be deleted (both prima facie and in apparent contravention of guidelines). I believe I have responded logically to every argument you have put forward. I would be happy to take this to some higher level of resolution if you'd like. Macosal (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Sigh, you just don't get it do you? Removing unreferenced content about BLPs is not only allowed it is encouraged! If you want to escalate this, feel free to do so... Giant Snowman 12:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Point me to where it is encouraged to delete unreferenced, non-contentious content on BLPs with no attempt to reference and I will happily drop the argument. Macosal (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from BLPN regualars here? Giant Snowman 12:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh ok sorry I thought you meant there was some actual policy or guideline rather than the opinions of two editors. Macosal (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Well there is - WP:BLP. Getting arsey isn't doing your position any favours y'know. Giant Snowman 13:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I apologise if that's how it came across (not that you haven't been a bit edgy yourself). WP:BLP applies to "contentious" material. But yes as you said we have been over this. I genuinely believe that there is no licence for the immediate deletion of unsourced content which is not in any way controversial or hard to reference. Maybe taking this further is the best option? Macosal (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I have already said you are free to escalate this matter if you wish. Giant Snowman 13:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to escalate things, but at the same time I don't want to stand idly by whilst uncontroversial, interesting/informative content is washed away. Do you think there is a better way forward from here? Macosal (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

A compromise you mean? We could create a log (User:Macosal/BLP) of articles that have unreferenced honours, which I'd tag with ((unreferenced section)), I'd then be happy to allow time (a week? a month?) for references to be found and added. If the information is not referenced in that time, I will remove. If it is, then all the better. Giant Snowman 13:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

These is some potential to that but I do have concerns: I don't think it should be all down to me to make every one of these edits, especially given the potential volume of tags and the number of people who have expressed concern at losing these sections. Also the potential volume of such a system is massive (tens of thousands of footballers), and so should the rate of tagging be too high it would become impossible to reference these sections. Given that, I also feel like one month should be a minimum and may in fact be too low (certainly whoever was tagging would need to do so in good faith, otherwise the system would be untenable due to the volume of tags). The time allotment would need to give reasonable time for editors to reference relevant sections (without obviously being too time consuming) - but this would vary as a result of the rate of tagging - in view of this it is probably wiser to err on the side of caution if a time period was to be set. The system would also need to extend to other objectively true information such as international goals. Macosal (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There is no "volume", I don't spend all day every day removing unreferenced honours sections, thrre are not going to be tens of thousands of articles added. I would also of course use that log to try and locate references myself. Giant Snowman 13:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That's fine then (as long as it was done in good faith there would be no issue). Is there no place, say somewhere in Wikiproject football, where this could be established in a more broadly collaborative way? Macosal (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

No, there isn't, and I'm not sure creating a new one would be any better to be honest. This log is really for me to give you notice of articles which I would normally take an axe to, in order to give you time to reference them before I do so. Giant Snowman 14:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok sure, although it would be better if others keen to contribute could do so too. One month then? Macosal (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

One month is fine, you might wish to notify Walter and ArtVandelay about it so they can help out...the more the merrier! Giant Snowman 14:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

David Brat

Just FYI: the David Brat article is one to keep an eye on. He's a Tea Party challenger that just upset Eric Cantor (the 2nd-ranking House Republican) in the primary. Already there has been whiffs of political POV pushing that crept in. I stubbed it back to a couple sentences, until someone can expand the article in a neutral manner. I also moved it from "Dave Brat" to its current location, given that reliable sources seem to be calling him "David." Lithistman (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

There are many eyes on that article already (including yours truly), and the article is developing nicely. Cwobeel (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Michael U. Gisriel

The subject is a disbarred attorney and a current candidate for public office. The fact of his disbarment is well-documented, and was consistently referenced in the article from the time the article was first published on Wikipedia in 2009 until 2013, when editors Mdpoly5 and MDLobby51 began editing it to delete all references to his disbarment. Coincidentally or not, the subject is a Maryland lobbyist born in 1951. Neither of these editors, if they are indeed two people, had ever edited another Wikipedia article.

An edit war unfortunately began recently in which Mdpoly5 deleted all references to the subject's disbarment, and I reverted his edits. Earlier today, I was warned for edit warring, for which I apologize, Mdpoly was temporarily suspended from editing, and the article was reverted back to an earlier version by Smalljim. That was completely satisfactory to me, and I had no intention of making any further edits.

Now, another brand new editor calling himself Bunnybug33, who made very minor edits in two other articles only a few minutes before editing the subject article, has again edited the article to eliminate all references to the subject's disbarment. I do not want to get into another edit war, and would request that Bunnybug's edits be undone, and that the article be temporarily protected at least until the end of June. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leevank (talk • contribs) 00:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

This looks like a problem and likely COI issue as well. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The link in the citation actually just sent me to the front page of the Baltimore Sun, which of course did not provide an actual article that directly supported the article-text, however it was easy to find the article, provide a more thorough citation and confirm the information. The Baltimore Sun is reliable enough to comply with BLP and the article-text provides both views. My suggestion would be to warn the editor, explain that they need to point out any errors, etc. on the Talk page and seek article-protection or a block if they continue to wear you out despite warnings. CorporateM (Talk) 04:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, setting the profession in the infobox to "disbarred attorney" was not a good idea. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Former attorney would be fine. Cwobeel (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "Former attorney" was fine. An editor other than me originally inserted "Disbarred Attorney." As far as the documentation for the disbarment, my original edit included the detailed circumstances of his disbarment, and a link to the opinion of the Maryland Court of Appeals opinion describing the basis for the disbarment. But I am perfectly satisfied if the article simply makes it clear in the occupation section that he is no longer an attorney, and if the body makes it clear that he was disbarred in 2009, and something about the circumstances of the disbarment, as it does now.

Given the fact that there have now been three ostensibly different editors of this article who appear on Wikipedia only, or largely, to delete all references to the subject's disbarment, and that one of them appeared only after another one had been temporarily barred from editing, I suspect that there may be a sock puppet problem, as well as a COI problem. I appreciate other editors watching this article, since I would very much like to bow out of this dispute. I am neither a candidate opposing the subject of the article, nor a staffer of another candidate, although I am a resident of the district and support other candidates. I would be willing to provide my full identifying information to an admin or to a completely neutral editor. I suspect that the editors who show up simply to delete all reference to the subject's disbarment would not be willing to do so. Leevank (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)