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

Paragraph one states that she is the oldest living child of a US President. Even discounting the current president's children Malia and Sasha Obama, what about Chelsea Clinton? Statement should be amended or deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.237.192 (talk • contribs)

Lynda Bird Johnson Robb is 71, much older than Chelsea Clinton and the Obama children.--ukexpat (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Roosevelt's, Truman's and Eisenhower's children are all deceased. With the 2013 death of Dwight Eisenhower's surviving son John, it appears Lynda Bird Johnson Robb (b. 1944) is the oldest surviving presidential offspring. Lyndon Johnson's other daughter, Luci Baines (b. 1947), is still alive. Among other surviving children, Ronald Reagan's adopted son Michael (b. 1945) appears to be the next oldest survivor after Linda Bird; Reagan has three other surviving children: Patti Davis (b. 1952) and Ron, Jr. (b. 1958). Richard Nixon's daughters Tricia (b. 1946) and Julie (b. 1948) are both still alive. George H. W. Bush's oldest son, George W. (b. 1946) is five months younger than Tricia Nixon Cox; Bush's other surviving children include Jeb (b. 1953), Neil (b. 1955), Marvin (b. 1956) and Dorothy (b. 1959). Jimmy Carter's three sons Jack (b. 1947), James III (b. 1950) and Donnel (b. 1952) and daughter Amy (b. 1967) are all still alive. Jerry Ford's four children are also all still alive: sons Michael (b. 1950), Jack (b. 1952) and Steven (b. 1956), and daughter Susan (b. 1957). Jack Kennedy's daughter Caroline (b. 1957) is actually among the younger surviving presidential children.

The youngest presidential children are Amy Carter (b. 1967), Chelsea Clinton (b. 1980), twins Jenna and Barbara Bush (b. 1981), and Malia (b. 1998) and Sasha Obama (b. 2001). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

So the upshot of all this is that Lynda Bird Johnson Robb doesn't need to be changed.--ukexpat (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

True. But it would be nice to have a reliable source that says so, would it not, for BLP and RS purposes? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dirtlayer1. While I agree that it is always nice to have a reliable source, my reading of WP:BLP indicates that the policy does not require it in this case. WP:BLP & WP:V do state any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source, but I am not convinced that this information falls into the "contentious material" category, nor does the OP's initial question reach the level of a "challenge". It certainly doesn't say anything contentious about LBJR herself. I'd suggest that the OP potentially misread the sentence as "only surviving presidential offspring". Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The guideline states that fringe theories that concern living persons must comply with BLP policy. I'm on top of BLP policy - know it inside and out - but I find the following statement in WP:FRINGEBLP confusing: ...but the WP:BLP policy does not provide an excuse to remove all criticism from a biography or to obscure a person's fringe advocacy outside of their field of expertise (see WP:PROFRINGE, WP:BLP#Balance). What does the guideline mean by "obscure a person's fringe advocacy outside of their field of expertise?" Atsme☯^Consult 06:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It means our article on Griffin is okay. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The outside their field of expertise bit is basically another way of saying the person is not representing the mainstream thinking of that particular field. That can mean two things. One is that the person has no training in the area, really has no idea what they are talking about, and simply aren't qualified to legitimately comment on the topic. The other is that the person may be considered an expert in the field due to formal training, but demonstrates lack of expertise because their views are not supported by evidence or reflected as having weight in the scientific discourse. At the end of the day, this means that if there is legitimate criticism out there being sourced or it is warranted from a weight perspective because of people getting out of line with fringe theories, it should remain. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, KoF. Atsme☯^Consult 19:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43: A person that has no training in the area, really has no idea what they are talking about, and simply isn't qualified to legitimately comment on the topic would be talking outside of their field of expertise. You are correct here but only here. A person who has the formal training and qualification in a field, an expert, who represents something other than the mainstream POV without evidence in their field, such as a fringe POV, is still operating in their field of expertise. They may become discredited in their field of expertise but it is still their field of expertise. This policy refers only to those that have no involvement in the field in which they are discussing. Atsme, The relevant policies that help further explain this are highlighted at the end of the section you are questioning. WP:PROFRINGE and WP:BLP#Balance.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Eh, I consider when someone steps into fringe territory even with training, they're no longer acting as an expert (i.e. a failing in their scientific training for instance). Maybe not an aspect people consider as much with fringe, but not something I'd really fuss over here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Jamie Redknapp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The "Summary" isn't about his career but a persons meaning on his comment on Watford's promotion to the premier league — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotu0902 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

That was recent vandalism by an IP and has been reverted. —C.Fred (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I made two edit to the title of the first photo "Leslie Mann". On the mobile version of the page on my iPhone the title was "Leslie Mann Juden swine seig heil". This did not appear on the normal browser page, nor the mobile version on a full PC. It also couldn't be seen in the editor, but disappered after I edited the title. In the source code for the mobile version of the page was the following:

<tr>
<th colspan="2" style="text-align:center;font-size:125%;font-weight:bold"><span class="fn">Leslie Mann Juden swine seig heil</span></th>
</tr>
<tr>

I don't know if this is a known problem with Nazi/anti-semitic vandalism. Hope this was helpful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbonish (talk • contribs)

Was vandalism from April 27, was reverted within a minute by one of the bots. Not sure why mobile would still be seeing it two days later. DMacks (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, looks like a bug then. I tried to include the html that was present in the coding, but I haven't done this in a while. Maybe the bot has a bug, or maybe it was intentionally taken advantage of.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbonish (talk • contribs)

There's been a bit of back and forth over some negative material at Dinesh Singh (academic). I think the material in question is obviously unsuitable as it is written, but probably could use some more neutrally worded summarizing. Anyone want to step in? Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I protected the article for a week and invited the various IPs to comment in the talk page. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Nicholas M. Loeb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Somebody is repeatedly vandalizing this article with libelous, inflammatory, derogatory edits. Seems to have begun only today, following publication of Loeb's op-ed in the New York Times. The history of the article is revealing, and the vandalism is ongoing by the minute.

Sorry if I didn't follow the filing instructions properly - the wikilinks instructions are incredibly complicated, and I just pasted in the article and history page links. I don't know what you mean by "Use the John Doe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) template at the top of your entry," - where? In the subject/headline? In the body of the text before anything else?

Watchlisted. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

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

This biography on "Shunaid Qureshi" was created to defame him. Issues of legal tussles and arrest which are still in court are included. Yes, the media covered the issue as cited in the article. But, How can wikipedia be used to defame a living person? How can someone's bio be written by another to defame him? I just read through the article. It's quite defaming. I suggest the article should be edited and those areas removed. Or let it be deleted if editors agree.

Thanks Rose.Rosemaryujoh (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems a WP:COATRACK, and WP:CRIME. Redirected to Naya Nazimabad - Cwobeel (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. Is the redirecting the best that can be done? Shouldn't the page be deleted entirely for violating wiki rules? Rosemaryujoh (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess the entire stuff on ""Shunaid Qureshi" should be deleted since it's purely an attack on the subject. There's no need to re-direct.Rosemaryujoh (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, the article "Naya Nazimabad" is also misleading. It was written for the same purpose, just to defame "Shunaid Qureshi". If you read through the heading "Chemical Dump", the same court issue and arrest were mentioned, all in a bid to defame "Shunaid". How can someone be contracted to use wikipedia to defame another person? That's too bad for our age! Hence, I also suggest the article on Naya Nazimabad be revisited. It violates the rule on neutrality.Rosemaryujoh (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Editors (despite of several undo attempts) have made it their mission to keep pushing the false impression that this extreme metal band would be considered neo-nazi by a wider audience. The artist has stated numerous times that the allegations are incorrect. Also considering the illegal nature of such ideologies in Europe, something should be done to this supposed biased activity. The German language version has even worse libellous material and hearsay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.42.68 (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed the unsourced quotation claiming there is a link between "Black Metal" and "neo-nazism". Meatsgains (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I blocked User:89.164.192.182 and leveraged the exception for BLPs about 3RR in these interactions per documentation at Talk:Francine Prose. I would welcome further review of my actions, and/or feedback or opinions on the addition, and treatment of the topic on the talk page of the article. Cheers, Sadads (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Some hot heads are camping the article. Using BLP sanctions is the right thing to do. Darx9url (talk) 05:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

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

There are currently no citations concerning his Arrests that claim that he is a registered sex offender. Someone needs to find this information and cite it properly within his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.47.18 (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the article a little, but the claim is referenced to a primary source via The Smoking Gun. Typically, we don't count it as a reliable source, and such a claim needs a pretty good bunch of sourcing. If it's true I'd imagine it will continue to be re-added to the article again over the long term.

An unusual scenario which I have never encountered before in my 9+ years of editing - ex-soccer player Danny Light seemingly died a number of months ago. While there is no RS confirming his death, it has been confirmed on an internet forum by a well-respected soccer historian and will be mentioned when said historian releases an updated edition of his book. In the meantime, what can we do? GiantSnowman 12:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't say I have ever ran into this situation before either. I'd suggest keeping his death off the page until it can be confirmed by a reliable source. Any idea when the updated edition of the soccer historian's book will be released? Meatsgains (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I brought this one to GiantSnowman's attention. The last book was 2011, the one before that was 1989, but if there's a re-print of the 2011 it's possible the information could be up-dated. I will try to contact the author and see where he got his information and if he's got any newspaper reports etc. Eagleash (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPS says. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." A forum post may be OK, if it's, without doubt, written by a reliable football historian. Darx9url (talk) 05:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Just so anybody who would like to contribute to the discussion is aware, the historian concerned is Ian King, author of Crystal Palace: A Complete Record 1905–2011. The Derby Books Publishing Company. ISBN 9781780910468.. There is of course always room for doubt as to a person's true identity over the internet. I have had direct contact previously and am reasonably sure that it's genuine. Eagleash (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

GiantSnowman has found a pretty good ref. from a former club's website. So now resolved. Thanks to all for input. Eagleash (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

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

This was kept with wrong data for long time. It could be Political or rivalry. I checked Internet well and found that 1. Mr Samaddar objected to Daily Mail intentional error news 2. Daily Mail put other errors ike "all 201 countries" fo... ==

Hello, I have done extensive research on Kashi Samaddar and hope that some good persons at Wikepedia will look to this report sincerely and safeguard Kashi Samaddar article and retain good image. This article is very important but has been attacked owing to jealousy/ competition as experienced and kept with errors intentionally for long time. I tried to improve but being disturbed last few days insisting errors. Kindly note:

1. His first World Record is on 27th May 2008 and not May 2008.

2. "All 201 Countries" by Daily Mail favoring Mr Graham Hughes is wrong as Mr Hughes got Guinness certificate of 193 countries? So why you are insisting and put this? Obviously to misguide people.

3. Daily Mail Journalist attacked Mr Samaddar with errors which Mr Samaddar reported errors, check Internet including Kashi Samaddar Adventure.

4. Few weeks after news on Mr Graham Hughes "All 201 Countries", Daily mail published for another British Person " All 196 Countries". So, for travel records concerned, reporting of Daily Mail is biased. USSYguy call this as genuine, obviously he is also biased- Remove all Daily Mail links.

5. You did not give any value to genuine news of many other Media from Developing World, about the Visa problems faced by Mr Samaddar, his great Mission to help people and extra ordinary achievements with a Developing World Nation passport- to help whole world.

6. Other people who visited all Countries includes few names like Gordon Brown who do not have certificate! Have you seen his certificate? why to add this link? Must be removed.

7. Mr Samaddar did not plan his trip before! How you know? It is Daily Mail ploy- so must avoid. He was traveling and pushing for equal visa for long end of 20th century but at Johannesburg, it added more fuel. Please delete as irrelevant.

8. All along except Travel time leaves without salaries, Mr Samaddar is a high salaried Business Executive/ Director (An Engineer & MBA see Linkedin Kashi Samaddar)but some Media made Businessman from Business Executive wrongly. We can accept Business Executive or Business Executive turned Adventurer.

9. My edits are true, genuine with supporting and neutral.

10. Kindly understand and retain my edits and support genuine / Truth with supporting links having certificates from World Bodies, who spoke what, developments etc and good image of Wikipedia. --Editwikigu (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You really should have started a discussion about this at Talk:Kashi Samaddar before bringing it here. At least you are now showing a willingness to discuss the issue. But even if you think you are correct, you should not continue changing the article to the way you wish it to be, as that is considered edit-warring. Hopefully you will be patient and talk about this issue. Thanks. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 18:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_King_(Texas_politician)

On Texas State Representative Phil King's wikipedia page there are constantly edits being made in order to defame Representative King. A section titled "Ethics Violations and Claims of Corruption" consistently appears despite our efforts to keep it off. These are grossly exaggerated or false statements that are being put under his name solely for political purposes. Our team keeps an eye on the edits as best we can, however it seems as soon as we take down the comments, they appear again within days or sometimes even minutes.

Please let me know what can be done to stop this issue.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.47.138.94 (talk) 23:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@174.47.138.94: Who is "our team," and who is the "we" you speak of? Sounds like you might need to read up on wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• It appears that the statements complained of have multiple citations to reliable sources. Why, exactly, are they outside of policy? GregJackP Boomer! 04:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Being libeled by a troll seeking to dishonor my past national service as a clandestine case officer (who then rejected spying and became a leading proponent for Open Source Intelligence). I have used the Talk section there to no avail. Suggesting that I am a liar about my past service when that past service is recognized by multiple sources including two Senators writing Forewords to my first two books on intelligence, is libel. In accordance with Wikipedia policy I ask that you either revert to the incomplete but accurate version that existed previously; consider using the accurate and neutral version I have posted on the talk page, or delete the page entirely.

Very respectfully, Robert David Steele Vivas 68.98.139.15 (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert. The article already has a reliable source for you having worked for the CIA, I found and added a second one as well so I've changed the wording on this. The page does seem to need some work, but please note that your own websites aren't considered reliable sources for wikipedia articles, what we need is independent, third-party sources (like newspapers, non self-published books, etc). Fyddlestix (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you haven't already, please read WP:COI - I note that you've primarily been discussing things on the talk page rather than trying to edit the article yourself, which is the correct approach, but it's always good to make sure people are aware of COI guidelines in this situation. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The user appears to be editing Noel Cox and removing parts of the article which come from verified newspapers. 86.181.149.124 (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not quite correct. I changed the statement because it firstly wasn't what the paper said, and second I added a note that the situation reported by the paper was subject to an internal university appeal which found that the press release, on which the media report was based, was wrong. It was also libellous, and could still end up in court.Ncox (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Whichever is correct, it seems most probable that Ncox should probably stop editing Noel Cox in favour of the talk page. That might be raised at WP:COIN instead of here, but.... Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 16:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I haven't made any edits since yesterday, but have raised some possible changed on the Talk page.Ncox (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The article of Roman Reigns seems to be under some trolling, his ringname changed to "Dogma Deigns" and profile picture changed to a shot of a doberman.

Under a straight quote from the article

"Leati Joseph "Joe" Anoaʻi (born May 25, 1985) is an American professional wrestler and a retired defensive tackle in Canadian football. Anoaʻi is signed to WWE, where he performs under the ring name Dogman Deigns." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.204.89 (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The vandalism has been reverted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

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

I note that it is proposed to delete this entry citing its dependence upon only two third parties and that it appears to be "a vanity project". I consider the deletion proposal to be motivated by enmity to the subject from a person, or persons, unknown who may have suffered personal loss as a consequence of the subject's known successes as a company turn around specialist with a proven record in this field.

I find nothing factually incorrect in the article but would comment that the footnote alluding to the subject's impending appointment as the Chairman of the National Trust of England & Wales is now an established fact and the subject is now in post [see National Trust website and current issue of Country Life magazine].

I recommend that the deletion proposal for the Tim Parker article be struck out as being mischievously motivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.129.251 (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It's no longer up for deletion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This page Venu Govindaraju has been edited by just 2 people: Esobczak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Suo motu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The former is an employee of the organization of which the subject is an "associate director"; the latter seems to be an account solely created to jazz up this page. This article is sprinkled with grand claims, but not much proof. I urge deletion, as this person isn't very noteworthy; and as such, has their own page in the university anyways. I don't see how Wikipedia benefits from a person patting himself on the back in public.

--ADrakken (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

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

The entire article is focused on defaming the owners of Naya Nazimabad. The article has caused untold damages to the entity of Naya Nazimambad. It also violates wikipedia rules on "Neutral point of view (NPOV)"

Check this line under "Chemical Dump" heading

"An case was filed in the Sindh High Court (SHC) against the Naya Nazimabad residential scheme near Manghopir that has allegedly been launched despite a report claiming that the area has been used dumping ground for dangerous chemicals. These toxic Chemicals are hazardous substances which could harm human health and/or the environment."

"A study commissioned on the directives of the Supreme Court of Pakistan has found that the populations residing in Gadap Town and nearby areas such as Naya Nazimabad are prone to cancer-like diseases through Asbestos, a chemical that can affect the population in neighborhood as it is air-borne"

The article also defames "Shunaid Qureshi, a developer of Naya Nazimabad. Check the following lines under the "Chemical Dump" heading:

"There is has been coverup to downplay the contamination of Naya Nazimabad in Pakistan's media. Shunaid Qureshi, developer of Naya Nazimabad, CEO Al Abbas Sugar Mills and former Chairman of Pakistan Sugar Mills Association (PASMA) was arrested in January 2014.[7] Shunaid Qureshi is a son of Hum TV director Sultana Siddiqui, nephew of businessman Jahangir Siddiqui, brother-in-law of Television producer Momina Duraid and the cousin of actor Sheheryar Munawar Siddiqui."

Hence, I believe the page should be deleted entirely for violating the rule on "Neutral point of view (NPOV)"

It's also a WP:COATRACK, and WP:CRIME case

Rosemaryujoh (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for violations of Biographies of Living Persons (BLP)- Naya Nazimabad is a place not a person so this isn't the correct place to report it (I'm not sure what the correct place is). I've tagged the article as needing cleanup- improving an article is always better than deleting it. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Joseph2302, where then do I report it? Actually, it was written to defame the place and at the end, the key person Shunaid Qureshi) in the area was also defamed. An attack bio written on "Shunaid Qureshi" which points to the same issues has already been reported here but it was redirected to this "Naya Nazimabad" page.

Where do I report it. We want it completely deleted. Someone was contracted to write it. Rosemaryujoh (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You can't just have it deleted. First you should try to discuss it with other editors on the article talk page. If that's not fruitful, then you could raise your specific concerns about the article's neutrality at WP:NPOV/N. You should read WP:DR for more guidance.- MrX 22:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment. @Joseph2302: @MrX: This is a BLP issue that deserves to be discussed here. Flat Out recently removed most of the article's contents [2] citing WP:BLPCRIME. I am not very familiar with the subject, and am reluctant to risk violating a person's privacy, but it does seem like a subject of considerable significance which ought to be covered better. It also seems like the people accused may be public figures. I'd like to solicit people's opinions on how to handle this case. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I did make major changes to this article which I considered violated WP:BLP and would appreciate views of other editors. Flat Out talk to me 00:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Gratuitous insults being added to BLP of academic[3]

1. Satloff added that Walt’s "stock in trade are smears and misleading innuendo, without a fact in sight."

2. Describing Walt and Mearsheimer as members of "that vapid school that essentially wishes that the war with jihadism had never started," Christopher Hitchens wrote that they consequently hoped "there must be some way, short of a fight, to get around this confrontation. Wishfulness has led them to seriously mischaracterize the origins of the problem and to produce an article that is redeemed from complete dullness and mediocrity only by being slightly but unmistakably smelly."

   
   --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I took a quick look, and it seems that the concerns have been addressed. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you spoke too soon, User:Cwobeel, see the latest edit that purports to rely upon WP:BLP. Basically it's whitewashing, including unexplained removal of a reliable source, plus removing valid wikilinks, italicizations, et cetera. Be careful, though, because 1RR may be applicable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

For now it's fixed, but this is a BLP that needs to be watched.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Watchlisted, and will keep an eye on it. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• There is no BLP violation there, as I told Gouncbeatduke on their talk page. It's pretty mild criticism given the topic area, and it comes from some people who matter, and it is written up in valid publications. Moving right along. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, the overall tone of the article is that of a smear campaign against Walt, and I think the gratuitous insults of Sotloff and Hitchens should be removed. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Weren't the gratuitous insults already removed here?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not. In fact, removing the fact that Robert Satloff is director of a lobby group makes it worse. His statements are an example of the worst kind political lobbying: the smear campaign against academics who report politically unpopular truth. They don’t belong in any WP:BLP. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia policy will one day include a statement that when an academic disagrees with the non-academic, the non-academic should be deleted from the Wikipedia article. Until then, please note that this BLP now says: "Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP)....wrote that Ross's connection to WINEP is innocuous." Your preferred version did not even provide the full name or wikilink for WINEP. You will make more progress here (assuming you're not blocked) if you would propose counterbalancing material from reliable sources, instead of blanking reliable sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. There's a new ANI thread here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I noticed the content of Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Screen Combo was missing so I checked the history. Apparently it was blanked last month for BLP violations. All well and good, except that the lead is now nonsensical. It refers to a "list" which is not actually present. Worse, most of the other Golden Raspberry award articles seem to have a similar level of sourcing (i.e. none or almost none). For example, Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Actor has exactly one citation for the entire article. It's my opinion that these articles ought to receive the same treatment one way or the other, so I've brought them here. I'm not going to go around tagging all the individual articles with ((BLP noticeboard)), but I will tag Talk:Golden Raspberry Awards shortly. --NYKevin 03:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

This page has been vandalised, clearly deliberately in order to cause problems at the time of the UK General Election. The edits should be removed immediately.

Already addressed, and the offender has been blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

My legal name has been Barbara Ostfeld since June 14, 1998. During my marriage to Mark Horowitz, my legal name was Barbara Ostfeld-Horowitz. Please correct my name to Barbara Ostfeld. I am grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjostfeld (talk • contribs) 19:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The only source in the Barbara Ostfeld-Horowitz article that is still active refers to her as Ostfeld-Horowitz. We would need a verifiable reliable source to change the article. @Bjostfeld: You may want to contact the Volunteer Response Team via email; they may be able to make the change via information you provide to them offline, including verification of your identiy. —C.Fred (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

More recent reliable sources can be found to substantiate this. The Buffalo News, November 9, 2012: "Trailblazing cantor Barbara Ostfeld to be honored: Music tribute to Ostfeld tonight marks historic role in Judaism". Also, "A Tribute to Barbara Ostfeld" from the American Conference of Cantors on her retirement. That seems sufficient to me; do others agree? --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Good enough for me, done. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC).

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

This article is very clearly written by the subject 'Ezekiel Ox'. Its a useless article that is just taking up space and feeding the ego of one person. I suggest deleting the page entirely or severely cutting down the amount of information on this page. It's longer than a lot of important wikipedia articles and this is about someone no one is aware of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.54.188 (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well, that sure is something. Poor writing, lack of verification, fluffy associated articles. Drmies (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Issue is though that there is coverage from reputable papers that is referenced in the article (although the Geelong Advertiser link seems to be dead), so any attempt at deletion is likely to be tricky. Perhaps an approach would be to redirect to Mammal (band), since that's what Mr. Ox seems to be chiefly noted for anyway. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC).

Chandra Bhan Prasad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Edit warring by SPA Vipinsodhi87 to insert their preferred "official intro" [4] - NQ (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Noting that the article has now got pending revisions on, presumably to deal with the inappropriate edits. Given the hagiographic nature of the edits, perhaps WP:COIN is a better place to discuss than here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC).

Bio of Wallace Shawn has been changed today to say that he died in April and that his death was announced today. However, the only source cited is www.Obituarys.com, which doesn't seem to exist, and nothing suggesting that Mr. Shawn has died comes up in searches of Google news, etc.D.Holt (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Given that Shawn made a personal appearance after the supposed date of death, this is clearly a hoax. I've undone the edits. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

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

I came across this article just as I was logging off for the day. An editor was adding some serious unsourced allegations in the article contrary to WP:BLP. At a quick glance I don't think this individual even meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, but I don't have time to look further. At the least it needs extensive pruning and more eyes to prevent further BLP violations.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

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

David Deptula I am the person whom this article is talking about. As a former high ranking government official I do not want my information displayed to the world on a wikipedia page. It poses a threat to me and my family. I request that you please remove it. Thanks for the edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.167.254.39 (talk • contribs)

The article seems to shade in a negative light and its missing all of your accomplishments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slider13422 (talk • contribs)

Hi David, can you clarify how the info in the article poses a threat to you and your family? What's there appears to be a matter of public record, and well-documented, see here and here for example. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, much of the same information can be found on the subject's Linked In page and his Twitter page, both of which are presumably under his control, although not the bits about the drones and the barring. (You can see him having a discussion about drones with NPR here) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The information is missing key points. I would prefer that my information not be displayed in so many locations publicly. I'm sure you are aware of current events. If anyone needs my biography it is posted Here A biography is an account of someones life....this is a 3 sentance summary missing massive amounts of content and information pulled out of context. That is why I request it be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.167.254.39 (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

If your concern is that it is missing key points and is too short, please realize that Wikipedia pages frequently start small and expand as various editors pay attention to them. If there are specific points you believe are worthy of coverage, I recommend that you post them on Talk:David Deptula so that editors can evaluate them and integrate them as appropriate (listing third-party sources that cover the information would help). If there is some specific reason why listing information on Wikipedia that is already available in significant other sources is of particular threat to you and your family, I'd appreciate some clarification on that so it can be addressed. If you believe that you are not of sufficient notability for Wikipedia to be covering you, you can call for a deletion discussion using the Articles For Deletion process. (If you have any associates who edit Wikipedia regularly, they may be able to help you on how best that is to be done. Otherwise, if you request, I can help you set up that request, although I may end up arguing against deletion myself.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I just expanded the article using the USAF public domain information referenced by the subject above, using the article on the current USAF Chief of Staff as a model. I will probably do more later, but this appears to be a comment on the negative information rather than a true safety concern. Nothing in the article points to any information that would help someone to physically harm LtGen Deptula. GregJackP Boomer! 16:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Robert H. Richards IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The new article Robert H. Richards IV is concerning to me because of the seriousness of what is being described in the article. Although it is verifiable, I am not entirely sure this is compliant with BLP which is why I am bringing it here. Also, it may violate WP:BLP1E and it seems doubtful that he meets WP:PERP. Everymorning talk 01:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

That needs to head up straight to AFD per WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

While WP:BLPCRIME requires us to presume a person innocent until proven guilty, it does not require us to presume him innocent after proven guilty. The sourcing is adequate and I find nothing wrong with the article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: WP:CRIME states "Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." This happened ten years ago and was still being covered in 2014. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• This was not only covered nationally, but internationally. Additionally, the 2014 lawsuit alleges a second case of child abuse, this of his toddler son, and reported as being disclosed during his probation meeting and lie-detector tests. Finally, Richards pleaded guilty to avoid a mandatory minimum 10-year sentence. Sammy1339 is right. GregJackP Boomer! 03:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this being a stand-alone BLP, even if he is, it would seem, a terrible person. It seems to me that the information should be incorporated in an article either about the case, or on the judge, rather than on the perp. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC).

On what policy grounds? WP:BLP doesn't require that we censor articles when there are multiple sources, the perp confessed, it is covered internationally, and over a period of years. GregJackP Boomer! 03:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I will bring this to AFD, where it can be discussed. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert H. Richards IV - Cwobeel (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

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

There are a few editors at the Carly Fiorina article who believe that a few editorial lists calling her (or asking if she was) the "worst CEO ever" is not just biographical, but a critical component of the lede of her article here at Wikipedia. It was determined^[1][2] by consensus some time ago that prominently highlighting the few "worst CEO ever" lists she's appeared on weren't appropriate for the lede of a wp:blp. And, of the three sources most recently being used to assert that "many reporters" called her "the worst ever," one is an unattributed (no editor or "reporter") clickbait listicle, one is a blog that also calls her an "asshole" (apparently of its own determination, not a quote), and one is a recent opinion piece that uses the question in the headline and never really addresses it (but does address a lot of other interesting stuff).

I've reverted the most blatant violations a few times now. I've also made a number of other edits to try to improve the lede (including the fact that she laid off 30,000 people, removing the unsourced assertion that the merger "made" the company lose half its value, included the fact that her resignation was "forced," cited the original reason stated by the company for her resignation, and so forth). I'm — by no means — here to "whitewash" the article (a common assertion against any editor who disagrees with the small number of editors who seem to really dislike the subject of this article). Despite my explanation of the major issues with the sourcing and the wp:cherry nature of the "worst ever" opinion being included in the lede, it has once again been restored. Given Fiorina's recently-declared, long shot candidacy for the Republican nomination, I suspect the article will continue to be a battleground between editors who love or hate her. I don't have strong feelings either way, and its clear the other two editors intend to vigorously protect their "worst ever" version regardless of my best attempts to explain why it is bad per wp:blp and otherwise improve the lede, so I'll leave this here. Good luck. Justen (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

CBS news, The Observer, USA Today and The Guardian are reliable sources.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

- Cwobeel (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

All referencing the same three lists (and two of those being self-referential to their own publication). Perhaps I'll write wp:listicles and clickbait are not reliable sources someday. But "many reporters" mentioning — in light of her presidential campaign — the interesting trivia that she was "named the worst CEO ever by a whopping three publications" is intriguing and wp:recentism, but ≠ biographical, and certainly not to the significant extent required for the lede. Justen (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether the Observer, CBS, the Guardian, USA Today and so on are referencing a completely unreliable source. The fact that they deem the source worthy of citing lends legitimacy to the source. Basically, Fiorina has pissed off a wide swath of industry observers with her inaccessible top-down style of management, her self-promotional style of leadership, her inability to admit to or learn from mistakes, and primarily her extremely poor showing at HP, including the initiatives she pushed forward which made the company lose so much value while sacrificing its ability to innovate, by slashing R&D budgets. She purposely made HP into a huge commodity manufacturer like the makers of toilet paper, rather than continuing to be an inventive market force such as Apple. All of this can and should be added to her biography, to flesh out the reasons why she is such a controversial figure. Binksternet (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with the assessment by Binsternet and Cwobeel of Fiorina in my off-Wikipedia life, and feel entirely free to mock Fiorina as an individual on Facebook or wherever. But we are not a struggling newspaper trying to generate listicle clickbait hits. Trying to force any kind of inherently non-encyclopedic "worst CEO ever" assessment into this article is unwise, and in my judgment, contrary to the fundamental principles of BLP policy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It's gotten worse, with editors there to prove a point now naming reporters by name in the lede of this wp:blp. I don't disagree with the viewpoint that her tenure at HP was difficult (at best). But I can separate my point of view and edit the article within the guidelines of our policies and pillars. That's, frankly, clearly not the case for a number of the editors at the article currently. Justen (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I looked up Fiorina as she has been in the news and found the lede nonencyclopedic and journalistic in nature. I agree with Cullen that we might dislike her in nonwikipedia life but an encyclopedia is not a place for judgment or lurid portrayal. She has all the marks of a corporate climber, self-serving and all, but it is not our business to assess what she does, only give people material to make their own decision. Limit-theorem (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Is it ok to link to this Wikileaks page in the External links section of a BLP, ie: Arun Shourie? I can't recall seeing it done elsewhere before but doubtless it has happened. - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Not ok ever, the content at wikileaks has been stolen, it's not an independent reporting source and there is no verification that what is published is correct - its not a wp:rs. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yaakov Moshiach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article seems to be a BLP violation because the man who burned the crosses is not identified in most of the sources I could find that discuss this incident do not identify the name of the man who did it, including the sources cited in the article. Other sources that don't identify the perpetrator include [5] and [6] Everymorning talk 22:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Nvm, it seems to have been deleted and salted. Everymorning talk 11:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Can someone review this article, I have some concerns that in places it's going further than the sources would suggest?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I've added a few citation requests.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC) Not BLP. Sorry. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

In the course of debating my qualifications, several untrue statements have been made about me in this discussion. Auerbachkeller (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Auerbachkeller, Thank you for raising this issue. I have removed (redacted) the statements made about you, that I thought might be problematic, from the Talk page; and closed the discussion at Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Auerbach.27s_response_regarding_expertise.

Some discussion still appears in the conversation at Talk:Gamergate controversy#A Counterpoint to Newsweek's View of Gamergate, and the removed information still exists in the page history; it would require an Admin to remove it from there. Please advise this page if you feel an issue still exists with the content on the page proper, or if you feel information should also be removed from history. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The Golden Raspberry Awards (aka the Razzies) are annual awards for the "worst" in American cinema. I recently deleted (and redeleted, when someone restored) the bulk of the article Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Screen Combo, because it was a listing of "winners" of the award and it had no source. Claiming someone won an award for being the "worst" without having a source is a pretty clear WP:BLP violation. It should not be hard for someone to source and verify the list, and thus restore it. Would someone here like to take that effort on? I would really prefer not to do so myself, as promoting that someone declared various creative individuals the "worst" is not within my comfort zone. I would also suspect that there are articles on other Razzie categories that are similarly unsourced, and could use attention from someone with BLP concerns in mind. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It took me roughly two minutes to find the following sources:

http://www.razzies.com/history/2015/2015-screen-combo.html

http://www.razzies.com/history/34th-worst-screen-combo-winner.asp

http://www.razzies.com/history/2012-worst-screen-couple-winner.asp

http://www.razzies.com/history/2011-worst-screen-couple-winner.asp

http://www.razzies.com/history/2010-worst-screen-couple-winner.asp

http://www.razzies.com/history/09winners.asp

http://www.razzies.com/history/08winners.asp

http://www.razzies.com/history/07winners.asp

http://www.razzies.com/history/06winners.asp

http://www.razzies.com/history/05winners.asp

I really don't see the point of deleting things that are easily verified like this. Our BLP policy is to protect LPs from claims that might not be true, not from claims that are almost certainly true but lack inline sourcing. You should use your judgement and tag those. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I did not wish to spend my time verifying these attacks on creative people; that's the responsibility of those who wish to include them in the encyclopedia. I did not feel like assuming that they were true, I have certainly seen false similar information here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'd say that in this case it would have been better to just let someone here know that the article needed sourcing and that you did not want to do it since you personally disagree with the idea of the Razzies. (If I'm interpreting this correctly.) Removing the information and then going to BLP/N to say that they need to be sourced and that you won't do it doesn't entirely give off the best impression since it may not be seen as helpful. That way the material would still be there and someone would be able to verify the awards. As far as attacks on creative professionals go... that's sort of debatable. There are more than a few people who have been nominated for these awards and gleefully accepted them in person (or at least have spoken about them without sounding like they were hurt). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree. I don't think we should have unreferenced personal attacks sitting in article space. That seems a pretty low standard to me. I didn't revdel the material or anything, I left it all there one undo away in the history. I took the time to call attention to it, should anyone be willing to address the problem. At the time that someone is willing to source it, it can be restored, but it should definitely not be sitting there and unsourced. If anyone wants to consider me to be "not helpful" when I'm taking the time to post both here and on the article talk page to note the problem where people who might be willing to source it would be found, then that is a problem with their perception. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Would it have been too much to ask that you spend one minute typing [ Razzie Worst Screen Combo ] into Google and looking at the first page of results before deciding whether to delete or mark with [Citation Needed]? If you are not willing to put in even a minimal effort at seeing whether something is verifiable, you shouldn't be involved in dealing with this sort of issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Nat, two things: 1) You may not "wish" to spend time with an easily verifiable fact, but if you edit Wikipedia, you should do it anyway. 2) The Razzies are, in fact, notable, thus not a "personal attack" like you keep them.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

May I note something? With all of you taking your time to tell me how I should be spending my time on Wikipedia, telling me what the article should now look like, telling me how I should ignore what I see as both the letter and the spirit WP:BLP, or effectively suggesting that if I'm handling those concerns, it is my duty to address everything on Wikipedia -- with all of that, you know how much time any of you have taken to actually fix the problem article (whether you think the "problem" is the item I addressed through deletion and calling for hands, or the "problem" is my edits)? None. Zero. Zip. The article remains unedited since I posted here. So if any of you feels like continuing to berate me for not editing the article by your personal standards, or to explain to me how unhelpful I'm being with my large amount of hours I've spent on this volunteer project, the link to my talk page will be at the end of this post. If any of you want to do something radical like taking the minute to do the things that you say would take only a minute, rather than berating me for not spending my minute doing them, the article is here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Nat, I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason I'm not going to do it is because it doesn't particularly bother me. Formerip (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Nat, this isn't a BLP issue. And the items are sourced at their original article. If you follow the wikilink from each year, you'll see the article. If you feel like those links need placed on this article, you are free to copy them over. But removing them by calling them unsourced is simply false.

Saying that unreferenced negative information about an individual is not a BLP issue flies pretty much in the face of the basis of BLP. And we do not generally consider that there might be reference on some other page of Wikipedia to be sufficient reference. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and if you think lists are not supposed to have their own references, "all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies ofVerifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references)". Other Wikipedia pages are not suitable references, per WP:WINARS. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Except that the material isn't unreferenced. Just chanting it over and over won't make it true. Further, I didn't say lists don't need references. I said it doesn't necessarily have to be on that page. Fir example, if I list David Caruso on the list of notable people in Miami, there doesn't necessarily need to be a reference shown on that list. When one clicks on Caruso's name, it goes to the article which DOES have a source showing he is a resident of Miami. Thus, it is sourced, but the source doesn't necessarily show on the list. I don't see any consensus here supporting your position. That should make you at least consider that you're not reading the policy right. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Several experienced editors have told you that you are wrong, yet you keep insisting that you are right. You may wish to read WP:1AM for further guidance. You are not going to get what you want from the biographies of living persons noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, at the moment, as some Experienced Editor has readded all that material without adding a single reference, I am doing exactly what Experienced Editor Tokyo Girl told me to do: coming here and pointing out that there is a page full of negative claims about living persons without a single reference. Guy, you may feel free to take all those few minutes you said it would take to go verify all the claims on that page and add reference for them. --Experienced Editor Nat Gertler (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• They are sourced Nat. Why are you the only person in this conversation who doesn't understand that? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• This is a clear case of WP:IDHT and should be closed. Going back and forth a few more times will accomplish nothing. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

As I noted in my edit summary, the lede for a section on the "MensRights" subreddit implied that drawing commentary from a specific person was inherently "controversial", which is obviously a BLP concern - describing a person that way is inherently subjective and carries a negative connotation. The edit was promptly reverted by Parabolist, who characterized it as "pointy vandalism". I object to this in the strongest possible terms, as I cited policy and/or good faith consensus for all my edits to the page, but especially as concerns this BLP issue. 74.12.93.177 (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You were right to remove the content. First, it needs a reliable, secondary source, which Reddit is not. It also seems to incorporate some original research.- MrX 03:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• Dakota Meyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently a number of editors have added content which they claim to be verified by a non-reliable source, which falls under WP:BLPPRIMARY. I first got wind of this via a topic started on the article's talk page. I reverted initially due to WP:BURDEN, and was re-reverted. I hope to avoid an edit war by starting a discussion here. The source provided in the talk page, and described by KarenJ503 does not meet reliable source criteria, and no secondary or tertiary independent confirmation of the source has been provided on the talk page.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This is your classic quandary. The event at issue unquestionably occurred, but we have only the primary source. The best resolution I can think of is that the lack of secondary coverage means it's not sufficiently noteworthy to include. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I have attempted to find non-primary sources, but have not yet found any. I worry, how much these edits have been caused by this blog post which I found when looking for non-primary source(s). It is an anti-Sarah Palin blog, and since Meyer's engagement with a member of the Palin family, this might have lead to the addition of the content in question.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I added a tag, a BLPPRIMARY source was added, I tagged that due to guideline concerns, that tag was removed. Assistance is requested.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

If reliable sources have not discussed this matter, then it doesn't belong in Meyer's biography. If reliable sources discuss it, then our biography should mention it, without giving it undue weight. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. ;-) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The reference given for the first line, "Richard E. Lapchick, is often referred to as the "racial conscience of sport" refers to a page no longer accessible on ncasports.org. It appears to refer to his own self-written biography, which, of course, doesn't tell us who, if anyone, actually calls him the "racial conscience of sport". It seems to be a self-given title. All other references to that nickname that I have found with an internet search on 5/13/2015 simply repeat the quote above, that "Richard E. Lapchick, is often referred to as the "racial conscience of sport" I can't find ANY original use of that phrase, only those who say that someone else said it.

There is a newer article on the ncasports.org site ^[1] that repeats the nickname in slightly different words, "Richard Lapchick has been called many things: the racial conscience of sport, a human rights leader,..." but it was written 3/18/2015 by his daughter and is not the source of this oft repeated statement that goes at least back prior to 2002, for I found this same wording written all the way back in October 22, 2002, at ^[2] "Often described as the "racial conscience of sport," Lapchick will discuss..."

There is no proof that anyone has called him this other than himself and his daughter.

216.16.210.199 (talk) 05:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Loralee Holiman

• I'm performing a Google search and so far the only things that describe him as such are various primary sources like these: [7], [8], [9]. It looks like people list it on pages, but mostly because it seems to be something that he puts in his press releases and official bios, which many places will just quote verbatim when they feature him somehow. I've yet to find anything that describes him as such in their own words. If I can't find anything then I'd recommend just removing it from the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• I took a quick peek at the page and I ended up removing it since not only is it completely unsourced, but it's also written in a somewhat promotional manner. The entire article has a fairly promotional, non-neutral tone vibe to it, so the article as a whole could probably stand to be de-puffed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe Aphra Behn was the first female British playwrit not Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.103.171.177 (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide any reliable sources supporting this claim? Meatsgains (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

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

It appears there is bias being revealed in the Maurice Newman Wikipedia biography by the administrator/author who is not allowing current news reports to be included about Maurice Newman's climate change stance in the Australian media.

In Australia, Mr Newman went on record on the 8th May 2015, writing a controversial article in "The Australian" newspaper about why he believed Climate Change was a conspiracy by the UN, to bring in a New World Order.

As Mr Newman is hired in the capacity of Chief Business Adviser to the Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and is accountable to the people of Australia, it seems reasonable to have factual information placed on the biography page of Mr Newman. The update today was removed and labeled as slander. How can a current newspaper article describing the controversial stance of Mr Newman, that he authored be considered slander?

Surely this information should be allowed in Wikipedia as a fact and not altered because a author has a difference of opinion. It was my understanding that Wikipedia was meant to be based on factual evidence. How can the administrator possibly claim the Guardian newspaper article by the new author was legally inaccurate and edited because it was described as slanderous? Who is responsible in Wikipedia for bias biography details? ^[1] ~~Jessica Thompson~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.172.137 (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about this edit, and in my view it was absolutely correct to remove such an NPOV personal attack. Newman's highly unorthodox views should be explained in the article, but that can be done without resorting to snide defamation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC).

I believe this biography edit should be reviewed by somebody outside of Australia. Lankiveil If one media source is only being cited as more deserving than other Australian and international media sources it is definitely appearing bias. I intend to raise this issue with Wikipedia management. ~~Jessica Thompson~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.200.176 (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I am outside Australia. I also have precisely no time whatsoever for climate change denialists. Lankiveil is absolutely correct, this content is inappropriate. Try to state the case more neutrally drawing on multiple sources. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned about the BLP ramifications of this comment on the Talk page. Seeking this board's wisdome in how to handle it. CorporateM (Talk) 18:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP talk page violation - removed and warned the user, he has been blocked previously and has warnings, looking at his edits, he is trolling, on talkpages and could easily and should be blocked for such indefinitely, any admin can see the associated block log https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AEnchev+EG. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Muchos grassius. CorporateM (Talk) 19:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Wow. I reviewed the contributions of Enchev EG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I really don't think we need his "help". I have indef-blocked the account pending some signs of appreciation of the problems. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Just removed a major (imo) BLP-issue on the help desk with [[10]]. Just notifying here, if anyone wants to look into the issue more closely, or disagrees with this removal and wants to revert. GermanJoe (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. WP:BLPCRIME applies, as well as BLP more generally. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

this is not actually about possible libel, but i don't know where else to put this. (possibly on that page's Talk Page, but i thought it might get quicker attention from here, as there isn't an existing Talk Page.)

in the intro part, one sentence jumped at me--"She is also well known for her difficult to understand prose." it's jarring in itself, but it's placement was particularly poor, interrupting the flow so that i found myself thinking, "what theory?" when i read the next sentence. i was going to just edit to move that sentence, but, since it was such a strange thing to write (or say) about a scholar, i went to the referenced source to see just who had made this claim, and why, and how. however, i couldn't find that assertion IN the source. granted, i didn't read the entire thing, but i skimmed it, and then did a search for the following words: "difficult" "prose" "understand" i didn't find use of those words that in any way matched the sentence on the Judith Butler page.

so i deleted it. i saved it, and a screenshot, in case it really was legit, although i also think that one can do an "un-do edit" and it would be back (i'm not terribly familiar with editing articles here--usually i do simple edits). my lack of familiarity leads to my question here--removing that sentence, and its reference, caused the next reference to use the number "4." i went to delete (and save) the actual reference, so that the numbers would again match up, but...i can't. this is all that's in the reference edit area: ==References== ((Re fli st|30em)) some sort of style sheet thing, i guess, but i don't know to edit it. (spaces added to the above, in case.)

this is to ask someone to, at least, go to the Judith Butler page and get the reference numbers "correct" again. i have screenshots of the intro part before i took out the sentence; 1 with text, 1 with the reference popped up. but i don't know how to attach them here.

this is what i removed when i took out the sentence: She is also well known for her difficult to understand prose.^[1]

oh, i also have never seen "<! --" and "-- >" used before, don't know how to use them, and so wasn't able to do spacing. (note that i put a space in each of those to ensure they weren't active.) i would have started a new paragraph with "She has also actively supported...", for ease of reading, but i couldn't figure out how to do it. i note that those codes aren't used in the rest of the article.

i'm not out here very often, so i may not notice if you try to contact me via this site. yet, i have the screenshots saved, if someone wants them. i'm sure someone here is savvy enough, and "inside" enough, to send a message to my actual email, if so.

thank you for your help in this. sorry this isn't very concise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atelic (talk • contribs) May 12, 2015‎

The footnote numbers are adjusted automatically when citations are added or removed, so there is nothing to do.- MrX 04:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

she is well known for her convoluted prose. i'll add that back with more citations. Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

actually i don't have to do anything. the body of the article already says this clearly so it is fine to include in the lead, per WP:LEAD:

Others scholars have been more critical. In 1998, Denis Dutton's journal Philosophy and Literature awarded Butler first prize in its fourth annual "Bad Writing Competition," which set out to "celebrate bad writing from the most stylistically lamentable passages found in scholarly books and articles."^[1] Her unwitting entry, which ran in a 1997 issue of the scholarly journal Diacritics, ran thusly: "The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.^[1]

Dutton discontinued the contest after critics opposed its hostile spirit.^[2]

Some critics have accused Butler of elitism due to her difficult prose style, while others claim that she reduces gender to "discourse" or promotes a form of gender voluntarism. Susan Bordo, for example, has argued that Butler reduces gender to language, contending that the body is a major part of gender, thus implicitly opposing Butler's conception of gender as performed.^[3] A particularly vocal critic has been liberal feminist Martha Nussbaum, who has argued that Butler misreads J.L. Austin's idea of performative utterance, makes erroneous legal claims, forecloses an essential site of resistance by repudiating pre-cultural agency, and provides no normative ethical theory to direct the subversive performances that Butler endorses.^[4] Finally, Nancy Fraser's critique of Butler was part of a famous exchange between the two theorists. Fraser has suggested that Butler's focus on performativity distances her from “everyday ways of talking and thinking about ourselves. […] Why should we use such a self-distancing idiom?”^[5]

Jytdog (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

At Stacey Dash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 172.250.76.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) showed up to change content of the article regarding the name of one of Dash's children and who the father of that child is. I reverted the IP because the material was unsourced, and the edit looked sketchy (the Stacey Dash article commonly gets WP:Vandalized). The IP showed back up with a source. I reverted the IP, stating, "Find a better source than Daily Mail, per various WP:BLP noticeboard discussions." and "Per various WP:Reliable sources noticeboard discussions as well. Anyway, if poor sources and/or unsourced content keeps getting added to this article, I will post a notice at the WP:BLP noticeboard." The IP showed back up to re-add the information without sourcing it, stating, "This information is incorrect as are the sources. Google 'James Maby Lola Maby Stacey Dash' and you will see a number of articles and photographs." So I've brought the matter here. We obviously need to use the best sources for this content. And if sources conflict on this matter, we should either report both aspects if, per WP:Due weight, both aspects warrant mentioning, or not include any of the material. If the WP:Reliable sources overwhelmingly support one side, we should go with that. Since the IP was determined to add the content, and knows how to source the content, I didn't see a need to address the IP on his or her talk page. But I will alert the IP to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Unless the child is notable by themselves, we should not be including minors names in articles. Which as far as I know is general practice here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I concur. And I find the practice of including the full names and birth dates of non-notable children to be amazingly foolish -- it's an invitation for identity theft in this era of online fraud. Non-notable children, especially minor children, should not be named unless their names have already been widely circulated in the media. If you have reliable sources for the subject BLP's significant other and non-notable children, it's always preferable to simply state, for example, that X and Y have a daughter and two sons together, or words to that effect. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict ]: I'm fine with removing their names, though I do commonly see the names of public figures' non-notable children included in the Wikipedia articles for those public figures. For example, Michael Jackson. Then again, in Michael Jackson's case, the children are also famous; so that goes to what Dirtlawyer1 stated ("unless their names have already been widely circulated in the media"). Going back to the Stacey Dash case, there is also the matter of the IP changing the father's name. Flyer22 (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that the "fathered by" text needs to be there either. Flyer22 (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I see that the aforementioned content (and other content) was added by this IP in April; I'd missed that. I have a huge WP:Watchlist, and I can overlook the Stacey Dash article when I see reverts at it and assume that any recent bad or dubious edits have been reverted. Flyer22 (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I took a look at this article, and removed the names of the two children, which are unnecessary to paint a portrait of the article's subject. Still, the article says she has a daughter (unnamed) born in 2003, and the father is named. I don't see why not to name the father, except for this: one source says the father is Maby, while another source says the father is Lovell. So should we ignore the sketchy first source (Daily Mail)? Or delete the names of the fathers of both children because of uncertainty about one of them? I have no idea.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Inserted another source into the footnote, so I think we're all set now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, did you follow me here after our discussion at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring? If so, I typically prefer not to get right back into discussion with an editor that I just out of a dispute with. As for the Stacey Dash article, of course we ideally shouldn't use the Daily Mail. That stated, you haven't re-added that source, but the children content is still problematic since the text states one person as the girl's father when the sources report differently. I mean, the first source seems to be stating that a different man is the father. We need to see what most WP:Reliable sources state on that matter and go with that, or report what both sources state if both of the father claims are given the same weight among sources, or not mention those two father claims at all. Flyer22 (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I have often edited at BLPN, it's kind of a hub of activity at Wikipedia. Just as you presumably did not follow me from murder to WP:3rr, I did not follow you here. Before you even posted this question, I started busily editing another BLPN-mentioned article, and I'd be glad to describe other BLPN activities of mine within the last month if you would like. However, since you would rather not interact with me now, I withdraw from all involvement in the Dash article, and will try not to interact with you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Because of the time span, and how actively I edit Wikipedia compared to how actively you edit Wikipedia, the Murder article aspect is not a good comparison. Otherwise, I would not have asked if you followed me here. I didn't mean to come across as rude. It's common for me to have people follow me/stalk me after I've been in a dispute with them. Anyone can check my talk page at this very moment to see my latest major stalker (his name -- Cali11298 -- appears in multiple threads on my talk page at the moment). And though my dispute with you at the WP:Edit warring talk page was minor, I was simply stating that I preferred a breather. I'm not stating that I never want to interact with you again. Flyer22 (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The father matter is now taken care of; I was going to do that, and I appreciate that help. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This page has been the subject of repeated biased edits and the point of view is becoming politicized and polarized. Needs some attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.211.1.242 (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2015‎ (UTC)

@64.211.1.242: This is the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. Unless you can identify how you think that allegedly biased and/or POV editing at the this non-biographical article is in violation of Wikipedia's Biography of living persons policy (which is possible, but you have not done so as yet), this probably belongs at some other noticeboard (which is probably why you have not received an answer for more than two days). Dwpaul ^Talk 04:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The linked page is a group of persons - I didn't categorize it as such; it was already (see the talk page). There has been repeated editing calling this music group "fascist", and the like. I think it fits. If not, please suggest another place. (64.211.1.242 (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)) In fact, with sincere respect, this level of complexity surpasses my interest in the issue. I don't intend to revisit this again, so if anyone is at all interested in this feedback, I leave it to those interested to take it from here. (64.211.1.242 (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC))

I contend that these edits by Rms125a@hotmail.com violate our BLP policy by placing waaaaay undue interest on the subject's membership in the so-called Group of 88 (itself a troubled article). I mean, that she gave up her seat on a sup-group (?) of a committee is of minor importance and seems to serve only as an opportunity to introduce two long quotes criticizing her. Let it be noted also that the section has been tagged as of doubtful accuracy, and that the sup-group stuff is sourced to a book by Don Yaeger, a rather sensationalist sports writer, and Mike Pressler, who is hardly a disinterested party here. I note also that Rms125a doesn't seem to be the most objective editor here, considering the racial slur I just removed from the Holloway talk page as a BLP violation; Rms should be the last one to remove an NPOV tag from the article.

In short, some of this content is fine--note my pared-down version--but what we have now is excessive. I'll gladly take a legal opinion as well; fortunately we have Newyorkbrad on retainer, and Philippe (WMF) tells me the check is in the mail, NYB. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I think your version is about right, although Rms did have a good source in Until Proven Innocent (just finished reading it myself). Maybe another sentence or two based on UPI would be warranted, as it discusses her role in the blatant race-baiting which was so central to the case (one of her comments pertaining to the case that got a lot of attention was "White guilt means black innocence, and white innocence means black guilt"), but other than that I think your version is good. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

My edits restored some but not all of a large amount of valid text rv by @Drmies. This diff (indicating a desire to delete even more text) shows the difference between his last edit and the current version. The only reason I removed the NPOV tag ("Rms should be the last one to remove an NPOV tag from the article") was because I felt the article as re-edited no longer merited the tag and that it had been redundant to the existing COI tag. I have restored the NPOV tag. Quis separabit? 16:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as a "racist comment" on the talk page, I can no longer see what it is I wrote as the edit summaries have been scrubbed (see [11]). I make no apologies. In my opinion Holloway's clear distaste for white men, her ignorance and/or willingness (despite being a "legal scholar") to jettison the cornerstone of American jurisprudence (the notion that one is innocent until proven guilty), her utter recalcitrance even after the bipolar stripper's story was shown to be untrue and the entire case unraveled, and her continuing unabashed presence in academia are, for me, terrifying. Wish I could live in an ivory tower disconnect from reality like some but that's not my lot in life. Quis separabit? 16:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

If that comment of yours was so ordinary as to be forgettable, you really need to do some rethinking, dear white person, and it's because of that comment that I said you shouldn't have been the one removing the NPOV tag, since anyone talking like that doesn't have a neutral point of view. I'm not going to repeat what you said, but turn on Fox News and wait ten minutes--or go to the Facebook page of your local news station and read the comments to every other news story. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

"[d]ear white person ... I'm not going to repeat what you said, but turn on Fox News and wait ten minutes--or go to the Facebook page" -- talk about a "neutral point of view" <redacted> among many others, who cannot be criticised lest they incur a tsunami of odium from the likes of @Drmies. Those My conclusions can be drawn from their actions and/or comments, not alleged violations of political correctness, such as those enforced in academia (Duke University being a part of academia, unfortunately, lest we forget). I thank God for Fox News as the opposition news media, and I don't use Facebook. In case it matters to some, I would be more than happy to have Ben Carson and Michelle Malkin, or Thomas Sowell and Condoleeza Rice, for that matter, as our next POTUS/VPOTUS in whatever configuration. Quis separabit? 17:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

And how is any of this relevant to the Wikipedia article on Holloway? I'm all right with your opinions, but the expression of them is derailing efforts to improve the article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall what I expressed that has since been scrubbed from the talk page, but I never expressed them in the article. I am willing to step back from the article provided you (@The Blade of the Northern Lights), or whomever, agree to watchlist and protect it from those determined to delete massive amounts of text in order to obscure the facts of Holloway's actions and conduct. And perhaps @Drmies should do the same. Quis separabit? 17:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The old censorship argument, I suppose--a lousy, lousy argument. BLP, Rms125a. We could ask any passing admin, left or right or in between, to look at this and see if it violated our BLP. I challenge you, and then you can eat your words with crow-flavored aioli--"political correctness" my ass. But yes, I am more than willing to protect this article from massive and undue BLP violations. Your stepping back would be a step in the right direction; even better would be a revert of your reinsertion of that undue content. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I support Drmies' edits in this matter, given the requirements of due weight. Having a section on the "Group of 88" issue that is larger than our entire discussion of her professional career as an academic strikes me as the epitome of what WP:UNDUE proscribes. If someone is interested in building up the article more broadly, there might be space for more details on the "Group of 88" issue. But as it stands, it's piling on a particular negative POV in an unbalanced fashion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

A significant part of the problem here is that so many "reliable sources" with an ideological axe to grind completely mischaracterize the content of the Group of 88 advertisement by stating that it prejudged to guilt of the lacrosse players. Anyone can read that actual text of the ad linked to in Group of 88 and see that this claim is patently untrue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I have a very different outlook on that, and the subsequent clarification statement, but in either event the section currently in her article is clearly way excessive. To save electrons, I won't repeat my earlier comment about the amount of weight it should be given. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I have shortened the section about the lacrosse team incident, and expanded the rest of the BLP.[12] After making a ridiculous number of edits, I think it's in good shape now, but we'll see. I have to go get a life now. Must stop editing this BLP. :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Your work is greatly appreciated, thank you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Wikipedia and don't where to post this, so please forward if necessary. The summary for George de Mestral that comes up on a search page has a word missing: "George de Mestral was a Swiss electrical engineer who invented THE hook and loop fastener. He was born to Albert de Mestral...." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akieken (talk • contribs) 18:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed It may take a while for the change to show up on search engines, In the future, just click the "edit" button and make the correction yourself, Akieken. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

In Lou Gramm it is stated in "Late 1980s and 1990s" quoting "Gramm was diagnosed with a type of brain tumor called a craniopharyngioma." a Craniopharyngioma isn't a "Brain tumor" it is a tumor that is in a part of the brain, even the wikipedia stub for a Craniopharyngioma is misrepresenting actually what a Cranipharyngioma is, a a Cranipharyngioma is a Tumor not a Brain Tumor, it is a tumor that is in the brain but doesn't consist of Brain tissue. A Craniopharyngioma is a Neuroectodermal Tumor of the CNS, not the Brain.

Can I fix this the error from "Brain Tumor" to "Tumor in his brain"?

^[1] Nervous tissue Tumors, look under- Endocrine/Seller

TimeholderTimeholder (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Not really as that would be original research. If you can find reliable sources that describe his tumor as a tumor in his brain, then the content can be changed. Apparently he also calls it a "brain tumor".- MrX 21:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

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

A recently published interview of Cate Blanchett in Variety included the following:

When asked if this is her first turn as a lesbian, Blanchett curls her lips into a smile. “On film — or in real life?” she asks coyly. Pressed for details about whether she’s had past relationships with women, she responds: “Yes. Many times,” but doesn’t elaborate. Like Carol, who never “comes out” as a lesbian, Blanchett doesn’t necessarily rely on labels for sexual orientation. “I never thought about it,” she says of how she envisioned the character. “I don’t think Carol thought about it.” The actress studied the era by picking up banned erotic novels. “I read a lot of girl-on-girl books from the period,” she says.[13]

On the basis of this, Sandstein added the following in the Personal life section of the article, with a citation of the Variety interview.

In a 2015 interview, Blanchett said that she had 'many times' had past relationships with women.

Sandstein also added Category:LGBT actresses. After reviewing WP:LGBTCAT, I removed the category, explaining on the article's Talk page that both the question as reported and her answer were highly ambiguous and should not be used to define Blanchett as an "LGBT actress". In a discussion I initiated on on the article's Talk page, Sandstein agreed to this removal. I then removed the statement from the Personal life section, since it created an implication not clearly supported by the cited source in context.

Sandstein has now reverted this latter removal, pointing out that multiple sources are reporting her comments,[14] [15] [16] with varying degrees of interpretation to imply that she has had female "partners". Sandstein also asserts that "reliable sources find it interesting, therefore so should we" and therefore that we should include this comment in the article. I continue to maintain that 1) the article does not support the implication that to my mind is inescapable by that statement without more context, 2) that if the quote is included it requires more explanation to avoid an unsupported implication (and should reflect the context that the interview primarily concerned Blanchett's role in a new movie in which she portrays a lesbian, rather than embedded in the Personal life section of the article without context), and 3) that the level of discussion of that one interview and this very cryptic comment required to avoid the implication gives the whole matter undue weight. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm as sensitive as anybody to BLP concerns, I hope, but I don't quite understand what the perceived problem is here. This is nothing particularly controversial or disreputable, merely an interesting and now rather extensively reported self-description that I think is appropriate to include – in a non-sensational, matter-of-fact form – in her biography. The wording can be improved, of course, but this aspect of her life (or public image) seems to be of some significance - slight, perhaps, but worth covering. The context in which she made these statements could be mentioned, I guess, but that strikes me as peripheral.

I don't understand the concerns of undue weight, either. These are 16 words out of 788 in her "personal life" section, which also contains such facts of epochal importance as "She wore a pair of Fairmined earrings set with responsibly sourced diamonds by the luxury Jeweller Chopard". So a pair of earrings she once wore is supposed to get more space in her article than her past relationships? Are we now supposed to be writing a fashion magazine rather than an encyclopedia?  Sandstein  20:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The sourced mention is fine, however the category is definitely not. By convention and policy we label people this way only until they themselves have "come out" in one way or another. See Jodie Foster as the most recent example (if I remember correctly). §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not objecting to the removal of the category. I see how it is a bit of a stretch, and we should avoid that in a BLP context.  Sandstein  20:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I would leave both the statement and the category out for now. As The Telegraph article says, "The double Oscar winner, promoting a film in which she plays a bisexual character, suggests she has had lesbian experiences herself" and "It was not entirely clear whether Blanchett was being serious or joking about her sexual past, but the comments have garnered publicity for the film which will premiere at the Cannes film festival on May 17." Yes, we can find sources that don't hedge their statements but after reading the original interview, the foundation of all those reports is too weak IMO. Abecedare (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

• The content itself is absolutely fine, and is an interesting biographical note that probably belongs in the article. The category doesn't meet our strict standards for categorization since she has not publicly identified as L.- MrX 21:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no self-description from the actress herself, nor any direct statement or question. It is wholly ambiguous (and as I said in my edit summary, it may have been dry humor / a terse rely to pressing personal question), and should not be on the BLP unless the actress clarifies and confirms what she meant. Lapadite (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

One feels inclined to agree that this should be left out. The positioning & phrasing of the content added to the article leads the reader to a conclusion that they would not necessarily make from reading the source. The content that we have included is undue based on only this source. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:BLPCAT, we need clear and unambiguous self-identification. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

NBSB, I think we are primarily concerned now about the insertion in the body of the article rather than the category, which the editor has agreed should not be applied. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

To illustrate the problem, here are a number of headlines from other Web sites, all of which cite the Variety interview, and many of which are generally considered reliable sources:

• Cate Blanchett Admits To Having 'Many' Sexual Encounters With Women[17]
• Cate Blanchett reveals she’s dated women “many times”[18]
• Cate Blanchett's bisexual revelation: Oscar winner admits she's had 'many' intimate relationships with women as she promotes movie Carol about a lesbian tryst[19]
• Cate Blanchett: I've had 'many' women lovers[20]
• Cate Blanchett Reveals She's Had Intimate Relationships with Women 'Many Times'[21]

However, none of these headlines accurately reflect the question Blanchett was asked, nor her answer, as they were reported in the published Variety interview. Last time I checked, we had a high standard for accuracy and fairness, especially in biographical articles. I think we should take the high road on this, despite the current high profile of her comments, at least until she has had an opportunity to issue a clarification. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Dwpaul on this. The comment, described in the source as "coy", was delivered in the context of promoting a movie with a lesbian theme. Of course, most humans have had "past relationships" with "lots of women". Coy remarks promoting a movie say nothing whatsoever reliable about a person's sexual orientation. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with others who say that the source should stay but that she should not be included in Category:LGBT actresses unless she explicitly states something along the lines of, "yes, I'm bisexual" ((Redacted)). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Erpert. With respect, the reference article does not contain a quote of the subject making the statement included in parentheses. The closest is the interviewer: Like Carol, who never “comes out” as a lesbian, Blanchett doesn’t necessarily rely on labels for sexual orientation. “I never thought about it,” she says of how she envisioned the character. “I don’t think Carol thought about it.” - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Cullen328 and Dwpaul. It doesn't matter that a million sources are reporting the ambiguous comments - the actress is a high profile individual; a bunch of attention-grabbing, likely sensationalized headlines will naturally follow. There is no clarification from Blanchett herself, who the BLP is about. Until/unless there is, it should not be added. Statements of sexuality/self-identification should be explicitly given by the individual, not implications extrapolated by outside sources. The individual is the only reliable source for the accuracy or truthfulness of their self-identification. And there is none of that yet - no self-identification, and no unambiguity. Need I remind, WP:BLP: Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Lapadite (talk) 04:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with the others- until Blanchett says something a little more explicit then we shouldn't write that she's had relationships with other women. Blanchett never confirmed any of this and never elaborated on the relationships. She might be bisexual... or she may have just been saying something to promote a film. For all we know Blanchett could be 200% straight and the relationships she's referring to are her college roommates, best friends from grade school, or so on. It could be that she is bisexual or even pansexual and she's held romantic and sexual relationships with dozens of women. The point is that we don't know and all we have to go off of is some extremely vague remark that could be applied to any number of situations. Look at Jodie Foster. Pretty much everyone in Hollywood knew that she held a long term romantic relationship with another woman and that she was a lesbian, however this could not be put in her article at all because there was no official confirmation. Even after she came out about her relationship in 2013 we still couldn't label her as a lesbian because she didn't explicitly identify as such and we had to specify this in her article. Anna Paquin is another person who surprised nobody when she came out as bisexual in 2010, but until she explicitly stated this we couldn't have it in the article. This is the same situation- until Blanchett says something more substantial or confirms this in some way, we shouldn't assume that these relationships were romantic or sexual. Blanchett might just be an actress that is trying to promote a film and/or dislikes that sexuality has to be clearly defined and labeled. What if she comes out next week and issues a statement denying that she's anything other than straight? I dislike that "straight" is the default with articles as much as the next person, but we shouldn't post what is essentially speculation based on one extremely vague comment/quote. I somewhat remember when Tom Hanks accepted the Oscar for Philadelphia, where he thanked his spouse... but did not label her as anything other than "his lover" and never even mentioned her sex, which made some people question his sexuality for a little while. (IE, whether or not he had a gay lover on the side.) At most if this continues we could probably mention something about her sexuality being questioned due to this remark, but I'd like to see a teensy bit more coverage than this just for BLP reasons. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Compromise proposed

Realizing we can't (and shouldn't) keep all mention of this interview out of the article indefinitely (it has been added and removed several times as the conversation here has progressed), I'd like to offer a compromise position. I propose that we should add both the question and her answer, both exactly as reported by Variety, without embellishment or interpretation (but retaining the context):

In May 2015, Variety published an interview with Blanchett concerning her role in the film Carol in which she plays a woman in a lesbian relationship. When asked by the interviewer whether she'd had past relationships with women, Blanchett answered "Yes. Many times", but declined to elaborate.[22] This led to much speculation in the media concerning her sexual orientation.

and that we should defend this as the least subjective and most responsible way of reporting on this interview. Then it is truly up to the reader to decide what she meant and/or didn't mean. If there are later reliable reports that clarify the question asked or the meaning of her response, they can be added but this text will not need to change, since it does not attempt to interpret either one.Dwpaul ^Talk 12:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

This looks accurate, but I think it still falls foul of WP:UNDUE. It's just an unclear passing comment in an interview. Formerip (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No objection to this approach, but I think we need a secondary source for the last sentence also. Considering the amount of attention this has gotten, I think undue prominence is absolutely not an issue here.  Sandstein  14:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I anticipated the second third sentence would be sourced also, with no lack of sources to draw on concerning media speculation (but this way we are calling it what it is). Dwpaul ^Talk 14:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Could I ask for a !vote on this proposal? Dwpaul ^Talk 14:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support (as the proposer). Dwpaul ^Talk 14:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose This gives undue weight to a single "coy" remark. We wouldn't have a paragraph on every single coy, cute, intriguing remark she has ever uttered in an interview, would we? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Being gay, bi, and the myriad states in between is not a hush-hush closeted thing anymore; we're not in 1980 talking about Rock Hudson here. The subject said what she said, so cover it in the the article and leave it at that. Tarc (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Agree with Cullen328. And like Formerip noted, it is a passing, ambiguous comment in an interview not remotely about that topic. The media, including all the tabloids, as is to be expected, sensationalized and extrapolated a vague comment from the interview. Why would this be notable if it's not a direct declaration of a sexual identity from herself? The interviewer himself stated it was "coy" and not elaborated on. There is no reason it should be added to the BLP unless Blanchett confirms the true meaning of her comment as per what has merely been assumed; only with her clarification/confirmation would it be a notable statement. The BLP policy is clear. "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." WP:V: "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion." It is irresponsible to add this in the BLP without clarification from Blanchett herself. Moreover, reminding that consensus isn't a vote count. Lapadite (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that a consensus is not a vote and v/v, but, interestingly, see how a consensus is (at least at the moment) becoming more clear (to me, anyway) when editors are asked to take a position for or against something, versus the open discussion above. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes of course; this kind of structure is generally helpful to organize discussion points and identify sides of an issue. Just sometimes it's misused as a merely a vote count, i.e., # of support, # of opposed, without regard to the merit of arguments presented (if they are). Lapadite (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppopse. While sexual orientation isn't the big deal used to be, we still need something at least resembling actual evidence before we can insert it into a Wikipedia article. The "take every offhand and possibly joking comment seriously" standard would lead to a conclusion that I am seriously attempting to become the official Wikimedia Dalek Supreme. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen and Guy Macon. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support. We're not talking third-hand speculation here, people, we're only verbatim reproducing what Blanchett herself said. Difficult to get a more reliable source. The statement may or may not have been meant in jest, but our readers are quite capable of forming their own opinion about that, we don't need to do it for them. And judging by the number of IPs attempting to re-add similar content, and the continued media attention, our readers expect us to at least mention this statement. It seems rather important for her public image now, however it may have been meant, and omitting it would make us appear confused at best, or homophobic at worst.  Sandstein  17:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Media sensationalism is not grounds for adding wholly ambiguous comments. And see the BLP policy quoted above. Lapadite (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• The "continued media attention" is a couple of days. WP:Recentism suggests a longer view. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• support She led the interview there. She answered directly. Quote her directly, leaving whatever ambiguity she said for the user to resolve, but pretending she didn't say something is paternalism - shes a big girl, she doesn't need wikipedia to protect her from her own internationally distributed interview statements. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding my comment from the BLP's talk: The interviewer introduced to the topic, and also never stated the exact questions posed: "When asked if this is her first turn as a lesbian...". The interviewer is a Variety editor and reporter who is very present during awards season. It's not about her filmography, it's a personal question, which after a "coy" likely humorous response, leads to pressing questions (as per the interviewer) culminating in a terse reply. Per the interviewer, no elaboration. No, an ambiguous comment (that may have been joking, sarcasm, annoyance, and whatnot) from an interview not about that isn't notable to include in the WP:BLP, certainly with no clarification or confirmation from the actress. We don't include any comment from an interview that may be sensationalized by media outlets. We don't include, for instance, "I tried to drink beer on pub crawls when I was at Melbourne University" from the sensationalized, widely-(mis)reported The Project interview. And just to clarify, I'm not ascribing any particular meaning to the comment, but saying that it is irresponsible to add this on the BLP without clarification/confirmation from the actress. Lapadite (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Per their comments in the parent section above, Abecedare, Ryk72, Tokyogirl79 oppose?

Also, Abecedare pointed out a media source, The Telegraph, that noted: "The double Oscar winner, promoting a film in which she plays a bisexual character, suggests she has had lesbian experiences herself" and "It was not entirely clear whether Blanchett was being serious or joking about her sexual past". Lapadite (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I intended to let those editors speak for themselves about their positions on the compromise proposal, since it had not yet been proposed when they made their comments above. So, no, I don't think we consider them Opposed unless they say so. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was pinging and asking them here, hence the question mark. :P Lapadite (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as accurate but undue. Side comment: (take it for what it's worth) We shouldn't get too worked up about this as a BLP issue either. Blanchett is a seasoned public figure who IMO almost surely, (1) knew the rumors her answer would spark off; (2) doesn't care if she is thought of as a lesbian or bisexual (ie doesn't consider it "disparaging" or a grave insult), (3) is probably getting a kick out of this hoopla. So while I would leave it out of the article, it's mainly out of concern for encyclopaedicity rather than out of fear that we'll be doing the subject great harm in either case. <end opinion> Abecedare (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

And to be clear: by (un)encyclopaedic I am referring to including reports about ambiguous remark about ones sexuality. Confirmed (esp. self-reported) information about sexuality can undoubtedly be encyclopedic. Abecedare (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as per User:Abecedares well stated comments. The worst addition in violation of the wikipedias WP:BLP policy was from User:Sandstein adding the Lesbian, bisexual, gay transsexual category in the edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cate_Blanchett&diff=662136879&oldid=662136803 I am not being funny, but imo , only personal bias could explain such an experienced contributor adding that category in violation of WP:BLPCAT Govindaharihari (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Govindhari, best not to speculate on other editors' motives and biases. It is probable that Sandstein simply came across the Variety interview, didn't interpret the answers to be ambiguous, and thus (as we regulars are wont to do) updated the wikibio citing the source. Nothing wrong with that, especially given that they immediately agreed to the category removal and have been participating in the discussions. Abecedare (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright then, simple mistake in regards to a high profile wiki policy about living people WP:BLP from a very experienced administrator that appears to adjudicate on policy here at the highest level of wikipedia guidelines about other users. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Given their adminship, their comments here and on the BLP's talk page, as well as their edits on the BLP, I don't think it's an unreasonable conclusion. Nor would it be an incorrect one to make of Tarc, per his comment here. Not that it ought to be made anyway. Lapadite (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I originally added the category simply because I took Blanchett's comments at face value: a person who has had same-sex relationships seems to me to fall within the LGBT category. However, it was pointed out to me that our categorization rules are more conservative in this regard, which is probably a good thing, and so I don't object to removing the category.  Sandstein  08:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support because, given all the coverage of this in top-echelon sources, it's better to cover this accurately than to say nothing. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

This was reported by every media outlet out there, including the top-echelon; misreported initially by all - should we have included sensationalized quotes from that too because they all echoed each other in reports? We don't include everything that buzzes the media, certainly not ambiguous, "coy" (per the interviewer) comments in a BLP. Lapadite (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per previous comments: "phrasing of the content ... leads the reader to a conclusion that they would not necessarily make from reading the source.", and WP:BLP (Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, WP:BLPGOSSIP et al), WP:NPOV(WP:UNDUE). cf. WP:RECENTISM. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Ryk72: How do you think that reproducing exactly what the source says may lead the reader to a conclusion that they would not necessarily make from reading the source? And how do you think that mentioning Blanchett's statement about her past relationships is sensationalist or titillating? People do have relationships, including premarital and/or same-sex ones, that's not particularly sensational nowadays.  Sandstein  08:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein, Thanks for your questions. I hope I can provide some answers. In the "proposed compromise" above, we are reproducing only a subsection of the source, not the whole; paraphrasing the question and repeating verbatim the answer; the context of the sentence reproduced is lost.

I concur that people have relationships, of all different types, including premarital and/or same-sex ones. While these may not be sensational in the course of everyday life; they are when the subject is a celebrity.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; people can read speculations on people's sexual or romantic histories, but I'm not convinced they need do so on Wikipedia. If this is a grey area, WP:BLP requires that we err on the side of caution. Hope this explanation helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 09:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: "Pressed for details about whether she’s had past relationships with women, she responds: 'Yes. Many times,' but doesn’t elaborate." versus "When asked by the interviewer whether she'd had past relationships with women, Blanchett answered 'Yes. Many times', but declined to elaborate." I can't see how we could possibly get any closer to reproducing both the question and the answer verbatim, nor that we will have lost any of the context relevant to the comment in question. If you think there's a way to do it, by all means offer a counter-proposal. Dwpaul ^Talk 13:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dwpaul, With respect, we are comparing a subsection of the source with a paraphrasing of that subsection; the context of the subsection from the original source is lost. Notwithstanding this, the other policy issues outlined above are relevant. I do not wish to appear glib, but the counter-proposal that I believe best meets our obligations is in my !vote. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Observation: With due consideration given to Lapadite77's caution that !voting does not by itself establish consensus, it appears that about 65% of editors who have !voted (so far) oppose the proposal. I just want to make sure I understand the alternative they advocate: that we continue to revert any mention of the Variety interview that includes or references this comment, unless and until Blanchett offers some substantive clarification of her answer (or, presumably, unless and until Variety releases a full transcript that resolves any question about her meaning, which I suspect they will not do). Dwpaul ^Talk 15:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, I note that Variety is (now, not sure about earlier) using the Web page title (not the headline) "Cate Blanchett Lesbian Past Revealed: Actress Takes ‘Carol’ to Cannes" for the cited page that describes the interview, so they are apparently going all-in with that interpretation. Dwpaul ^Talk 15:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose... for now. I don't mind the way this is phrased, but I do think that it's a bit early to include this in her article. I'd say that we should wait a few more months before including this because it can be seen as being just a little too recent. The media is reporting on this now, but it's also fairly clear that they're sensationalizing this up because it makes for clicks and there is a lot of competition for readers. Wikipedia doesn't rely on that and we have to make sure that we're not buying into the same sensationalism. Let's revisit it in 2-3 months and see what Blanchett has said about everything or if this is still being covered. It's likely that it will, but we don't entirely have any way of knowing. If she'd been a little more forthcoming I'd say include it, but what's stopping me is how coy she played everything. We have no way of knowing if this is something she said to gain attention for a film (ie, marketing) or if it's legitimate. I just don't want this to be included if this is just marketing on Blanchett's part. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support. We definitely can't put her in the category, but a sentence or two can give it proper context, and I don't feel it's WP:UNDUE weight. In particular, this particular part of the interview is already picking up attention from many, many other highly-reliable, non-gossip-column media sources, including the International Business Times, the Guardian, news.com.au, the Telegraph, and countless more. These are not simply tabloids repeating rumors. I understand that some editors might feel that these sources are drawing too much from a single line in an interview (especially when it comes to sexuality, which is often controversial), but the International Business Times, The Guardian, Time, The Sydney Morning Herald, and so on are not gossip rags, and it seems silly to suggest that they are. There are situations where comments like this become so notable and high-profile that they have to be put in an article (if carefully to avoid overstating them), and this is well past that point. It is one thing to say that we should ignore stuff from known gossip columns, or to avoid citing things like this to anything but the highest-quality sources (which I certainly agree with); it's quite another to turn around when it is being covered by the highest-quality sources and say "we should treat the International Business Times like a gossip column here and disregard the fact that it's covering this, because I, as an editor, personally feel that they're overstating it." BLP requires that we ignore things from tabloids and gossip columns; it does not mean that we can ignore coverage in reliable sources like these simply by stating the opinion that we feel that the topic is gossip or because we don't believe those sources should be covering it. --Aquillion (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• For me it's not that they're tabloid magazines or anything like that, just that right now all of the news stories are running off of one line. None of them have received any further statement from Blanchett, so right now all we have is one extremely vague line. We have no way of knowing what type of relationship it was, whether she was serious when she made the statement, or anything to that extent. It's not exactly like when Anna Paquin openly stated that she was bisexual. It should be approached with extreme caution and I think that we shouldn't be so quick to rush in and add this immediately. The one thing we have on Wikipedia is time. If this is going to be mentioned further in the future (and it's likely that it will), then we can re-add this in a few months. I'm just worried that right now all we're basing this on is that multiple newspapers have rushed out to write their own news stories that only rehash what was vaguely purported in an interview with someone else. If any of them had interviewed Blanchett and received a similar remark I'd be more likely to see where we could include it right away, but to my knowledge she's only made this statement to one person. Everyone else is just copying the same speculation/OR that other outlets have made. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Case closed, Blanchett misquoted - See this is why we take precautions and don't publish whatever the media sensationalizes. At the press conference for her film, Blanchett was asked about the Variety quote, to which she said the interviewer did not print her followup to her response - along the lines of: "Have I had relationships with women? Yes, many. Sexual relationships? None.” Reports would be out soon. See this tweet: [23]. Edit: and here's one, from The Guardian: Blanchett, who is married with four children, said her quote had been judiciously edited for effect. “From memory, the conversation ran: ‘Have you had relationships with women?’ And I said: ‘Yes, many times. Do you mean have I had sexual relationships with women? Then the answer is no.’ But that obviously didn’t make it.” Lapadite (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Wow. Just wow. If any participating editors ever needed an example case for using great care in labeling the sexuality of our BLP subjects -- in the absence of some sort of declaration from the subject or other definitive evidence -- this would be the one. If Blanchett's account is believed, this is Example 1-A for how some folks in the media have agendas of their own or just might want to cause a stir and sell some more newspapers. Having watched this discussion play out over the past week, I think we should all take a time-out and think on this for a good, long while. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well, we can only be as up to date as our sources, or else we would never be able to cover recent events. We should have covered her comments as quoted in the normally reliable Variety before, and now we should still briefly mention them, together of course with a mention of Blanchett's correction. Whatever we may think about the media as a result of this, it's still an event in her public life that bears mention and that readers may look for information about (especially if they only read the first wave of reports).  Sandstein  16:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• But why is it so terribly important to be up to date, especially in cases like this? We're not talking about a specific event such as the Nepalese earthquakes but a single passing remark within the broad sweep of a person's career. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• It's not important in the sense of, well, anything outside Wikipedia, but our readers do rely on us to have reasonably up-to-date (sourced) information on important developments regarding our article subjects, and judging by the media reaction many people did consider this to be an important aspect of Cate Blanchett's life. Certainly more important than much of what is in her article now, as mentioned above.  Sandstein  18:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• User:Sandstein it is hard to see why you are still supporting your position, which basically now boils down to a low level press outlet misreported her statements to assert she was a lesbian, in all ways a violation of so many WP:policies and guidelines. The fact that you were the editor to add the category lesbian gay bisexual and transsexual person is a shame on you. Govindaharihari (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• This IS a perfect case to show why editors shouldn't read into comments, try to interpret them and label someone's sexuality. This nonsense about being "up to date" is exactly why we have NOTNEWS. And no, we shouldn't briefly mention them now. As it turns out, the comments were misunderstood and this will drop out of the news cycle, making it more RECENTISM than actually notable material. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• This is perfect, so perfect to support WP:BLP and conservative additions in relation to living people. Wikipedia has a duty of care to report conservatively about living people. Govindaharihari (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The input of editors familiar with the details of the BLP policy is requested at Talk:Richie Farmer#BLP question. There is no ongoing dispute, just a need for information. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

NBA career dates listed as the day Kobe Bryant scored 81 on him. This is trolling, not encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewingman5 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Reverted to 2 May. VandVictory (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Monique Lamoureux-Kolls got a divorce 2+ years ago and would like to go back to her original name removing Kolls but every time we try and remove it, someone adds it back to her profile page. Monique at this point is now engaged to someone else and it is a bit disconcerting that this keeps happening. I was hopeful that the Wiki community can help us change it back to her maiden name.

Thanks SenatorBF ... I am Monique's sports agent. If you go to www.agm.us you will see a full bio on her as well as my other clients. Much appreciated in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SenatorBF (talk • contribs) 16:12, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@SenatorBF:  Done - further info at Talk:Monique Lamoureux#Name. As her agent you have a clear conflict of interest here, but you did the right thing in raising it as a noticeboard rather than editing the article yourself. GiantSnowman 16:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The Israeli news website Ynetnews has published a story [24] about how Google's biographical data (taken from Wikipedia) on Israeli president Reuven Rivlin lists his place of birth as Palestine. This is of course correct as Rivlin was born in Mandatory Palestine 9 years before Israel existed. Unfortunately some people have been trying to "correct" the article, and there has been similar activity on the BLP of Natalie Portman. It would be helpful if people could keep an eye on these BLPs. Prioryman (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This might seem crazy, but would the Rivlin article be helped at all by putting a carriage-return after "Jerusalem," in the Infobox, so that "Mandatory Palestine" was on one line, not across two? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 15:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. And I semiprotected the article. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I am J. Gopikrishnan, a journalist from India. The Wiki have a page on me : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Gopikrishnan I want to add more information about me. (redacted) Please add the below mentioned information (after the current info) about me in this page. Please also tell me how to upload my photo.

Here is the information about me (please add this after the current info) : ...................... His first report on 2G Scam appeared in ‘The Pioneer”, English newspaper on December 11, 2008, exposing the hidden list of companies floated by the relatives of then telecom minister A.Raja. In “The Pioneer”, J Gopikrishnan had continuously wrote series of reports on various aspects of 2G Scam and Aircel-Maxis Scam and other related reports on the violations of the telecom scandal and the politico- corporate players involved in it for three years. “The Pioneer” had published more than 200 reports on the telecom scandal which shook Indian government lead by the Congress party leading to the electoral drubbing in 2014.

Gopikrishnan’s major reports on the 2G Scam, which rocked the ruling Congress led UPA Government is available at his personal blog : http://jgopikrishnan.blogspot.in/

Important series of reports on 2G Scam were on the midnight letters between then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Telecom minister A.Raja (http://jgopikrishnan.blogspot.in/2009/11/raja-defied-pm-ignored-bhardwajs-noting.html), expose of phone tapping of controversial lobbyist Niira Radia(http://jgopikrishnan.blogspot.in/2010/05/2g-spectrum-scandal-araja-nira-radia.html), Murky activities in BSNL’s WiMax franchisee allotments (http://jgopikrishnan.blogspot.in/2009/05/wimax-scam-another-murky-deal-of-indian.html & http://jgopikrishnan.blogspot.in/2010/03/bsnls-murky-wimax-deals.html), hidden minutes of the meetings between then Finance Minister P Chidambaram and Telecom Minister A.Raja (http://jgopikrishnan.blogspot.in/2012/03/chidambaram-in-2g-radar.html) and violations in FIPB approvals of Aircel-Maxis scam by former Finance Minister P Chidambaram (http://jgopikrishnan.blogspot.in/2012/06/aircel-maxis-deal-chidambarams.html).

Apart from Ramnath Goenka award for the Journalist of the Year – 2009 (awarded in January 2012), Gopikrishnan had also bagged several prestigious awards like CNN-IBN television channel’s ‘Indian of the Year’ (Special category ) in December 2010 and Rajasthan Patrika newspaper’s KC Kulish International Award for Excellence in Journalism -2010 (awarded on March 2014).

He also presented a paper on ‘Telecom scandal of India” in coveted international journalist’s conference in Norway – SKUP in March 2012. http://nettsidearkiv.skup.no/www.skup.no/Konferansearkiv/copy-of-Konferansen_2012/5502.html

Anti-Corruption Movement

J Gopikrishnan was actively involved in the anti-corruption movements in India started from late 2010, when 2G Scam hit the headlines following the resignation and arrest of then Telecom Minister A. Raja. He was a complainant to CBI and CAG from 2009 about the ramification of the scam demanding probe on telecom scandal. He deposed before Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of Parliament on March 2011 on the telecom scandal and Niira Radia tapes (http://www.outlookindia.com/news/article/2g-journalist-appears-before-pac/714374).

He is an active member of Action Committee Against Corruption in India (ACACI), headed by BJP leader Dr.Subramanian Swamy and Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform (CJAR) headed by noted lawyer Prashant Bhushan. He associated with Subramanian Swamy and Prashant Bhushan in their legal cases on the telecom scandal and other major corruption cases. Gopikirshnan had participated in several seminars in India and abroad and made speeches mainly on media ethics and corporatisation of media. He is a regular speaker in several media institutes.

Journalistic Career:

After the post graduate course in Public Administration, J Gopikrishnan in early 1994 started his career as Sub-Broker in Stock Exchanges in Kerala and switched over to media field in late 1995 as a Stringer of Doordarshan’s Thiruvananthapuram station. He was Television producer of several documentaries in Doorsharshan and Asianet TV channels. He obtained Post Graduate Diploma in Journalism from Institute of Journalism, Press Club, Thiruvananthapuram from 1998-1999 batch. He worked with several media organisations in Kerala and shifted to Delhi and joined in “The Pioneer” in 2008. He also writes columns in several news organisations in Malayalam language.

Personal Life:

J Gopikrishnan was born in 1970 in Thalassey in Kerala. His father, late K Jayachandran was a Mathematics professor and a well known short story writer in Kerala. He passed away in August 2001. His mother K. Lakshmikutty was an English professor. His brother J Anil Kumar is an engineer. Gopikrishnan is married to Dr.N Nisha Rani, a Ph.D scholar in Carnatic Music in September 2002. They have one daughter G.N. Geethanjali. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgopikrishnan70 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• This article might be a good AfD candidate. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think they are? I don't know much about the 2G spectrum scam or the Ramnath Goenka Journalist of the Year Award, but a glance at Google seems to indicate that both are sufficient to pass the general notability criteria for biographies, and a google search for his name seems to turn up more than enough decent sources to support an article. --Aquillion (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Ghits don't equal notability. They simply show that the name exists. A reporter will often show up in Google searches because of his job. Having a job as a reporter doesn't make you notable. Significant coverage by reliable 3rd party sources does that. And just reporting a story doesn't get it either. Unless some better sourced significant coverage is demonstrated, this may very well end up in AfD Niteshift36 (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

• The normal way would be to add suggestions (reliably sourced factual content) at Talk:J. Gopikrishnan. As long as you're writing a draft, better remember that such ingredients as the italicized bits within "important series of reports", "bagged several prestigious awards", "headed by noted lawyer Prashant Bhushan", "a well known short story writer" (however well earned you think they are) will do nothing to show notability and encyclopedia-worthiness and instead are likely to make your fellow editors bristle. -- Hoary (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

A report by a US Academic named Andrew Reynolds was published in the New Statesman [25] and picked up by several newspapers. It mentions in passing that Mhairi Black is LGBT, however as far as I know she has never publicly self-identified as lesbian and never made an issue of it during her campaign. Reliable sources and all, ultimately the claim originates from a single person who has no personal connection to her and appears to be making assumptions based on her appearance and manner. Until she publicly self-identifies I don't think this should be included in her article. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Redacted per WP:BLP - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Whether she should be described as LGBT, and whether her nationality should be "Scottish" or "British" are the source of slow motion edit warring by various users and IPs. I debated protecting the page but I don't think it rises to that level quite yet (and semi wouldn't solve anything), but the article could do with more eyes. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Meghan Agosta-Marciano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Good evening, I am the sports agent for Ms. Agosta. She has separated and is getting a divorce. She would like to have her name revert back to Meghan Agosta. I don't know how to do this for the main page as well as the info box that is on the page and thought to ask the community how you could help. My firm has worked for her for 4 years now. www.agm.us you will see more information about her career. Thanks --SenatorBF (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)SenatorBF--SenatorBF (talk) 06:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello SenatorBF. Thank you for posting here and openly admitting your conflict of interest. That is a credit to you. Have any reliable sources discussed her separation and impending divorce? If so, please post links here, and on the article's talk page. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think that if she were to issue a statement or be featured in a news story where they mentioned her wish to revert to her maiden name and referred to her by her maiden name, that would help quite a bit. I do need to warn you that there will still be a redirect for her hyphenated married name since that would be a viable search target and this would be mentioned somewhere in the article, probably as something like "also known by her former married name Meghan Agosta-Marciano" or something to that extent. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

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

In the article it states both 1955 and 1965 as year of birth. Which is it? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.51.172 (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

This article from BBC news says that "Yevgeny Podkletnov was born into a highly educated family in the Soviet Union in the mid-1950s." 1965 was just a typo maybe? Fyddlestix (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Not a lot of reliable sources available on this guy's personal life or DOB. I changed it to 1955 for now since the BBC story is one of the more reliable sources cited in the article. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

William Claude Harper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A friend of mine, Martha Fleischman recently submitted an updated bio on Mr. Harper that was verified by Mr. Harper himself and it was returned. The administrator who reviewed the research is a census taker and the administrator told Ms. Fleischman that it was not as good as what is there. However that bio is incorrect. Please advise why it was not accepted.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.32.95 (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is the article before and after the change. It has been restored to its "before" state for now. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The point of view of this article is not neutral. It makes claims about the motives of the subject that are not verifiable. It describes her in emotive, hostile language (e.g. describing her voice as grating). The Dalrymple book is cited as a source for claims of fact, suggesting that the claims were proven by the book's author, whereas actually he merely reports them as views expressed by some interviewees.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.127.10 (talk • contribs)

An IP-hopping user (59.*.*.* socks) has been recently restoring content which is blatantly contrary to WP:NPOV. Some removal of unref and POV-pushing was done. Probably needs semi-protection, and oversight for POV/OR issues. However, article's talk could use more input e.g. no mention yet on the talk page about the suitability of the Dalrymple source. Dl2000 (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow! What a bundle of POV pushing BLP violations, and (even on a quick check) misrepresentation of sources. Thanks 109* for bringing this to this board, and Dl2000 for the clean-up you did. I have watchlisted it for now and will try further clean up during this week. Will also post at WT:INB for more eyes and hand. Abecedare (talk) 00:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Good editors of the BLP/N board, please take a look at Sharron Davies#Personal life. There are extremely personal details of engagements, marriages, divorces, fertility treatments, etc., included here, much of it unsourced or unreliably sourced. This woman was an Olympic swimmer, but I doubt she signed on to have these sorts of details of her life published by Wikipedia, and in these less-than-flattering terms. We also have the usual problem of non-notable children's full names and birth dates. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I've taken a bit out. We definitely don't need unsourced gossip the names of her children or her current address in the article. I've left the bit about her IVF treatment in for now - whether we should have this or not probably depends on how public she was about it, and I don't know enough about her to assess that. So I'll leave it for someone else to have a look. Formerip (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference to Davies' first marriage has now been removed stating unsourced (after it was tagged for citation earlier). However just googling her and her first husband's names reveals several links etc. here, (some better than others) so maybe it should be restored. WP:TC possibly refers. Eagleash (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Louise Blouin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Concerns have been raised that the information in the controversy section of this article should not be in the article in question. See WP:Articles for deletion/Louise Blouin for more information about this. Do other editors think it is WP:UNDUE or a BLP violation for any reason? (Personally, I think it probably isn't because it's well sourced.) Everymorning talk 16:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I closed the AFD. It does look like that's more for the business than the person. In fact I'd say a redirect would be ideal here, given how little bio material there is. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Robert Sears (physician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is no neutral point of view. Any edits made to the page are immediately removed. All of the comments/reactions are negative. There is not a single "reaction" posted in favor or any comments dealing with informed consent. The entire page is an attack on Dr. Sears and those who selectively vaccinate or delay vaccinations. Either the article should include only facts without any opinions or several different viewpoints need to be presented. I am a certificated teacher and will be using this article andmy experience to inform students of why wikipedia is not a trusted source. BookwormAtTheBorder (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:FRINGE. In Wikipedia we describe mainstream views when addressing subjects related to medicine. See also WP:MEDRS. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@BookwormAtTheBorder: "highlights his passion", "fair and objective look", "His appeals for safety and caution in scheduling have led industry lobbyists to wage a smear campaign against him.", "His courage to speak out for the truth has earned him the love and support of millions of parents." As a teacher, you might want to read this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bill Cosby article apparently is siding with his accusers, even though he has never been convicted, charged, or any of the allegations proven that he drugged and raped women for years. We pretty much state that he did in the introduction and in a lengthy section. I'm sure the Enquirer appreciates that we are cataloging all this information but given his voluminous career and all this unproven smears have come up over the last six month mainly maybe Wikipedia should put away the torches and pitchforks until any actual new legal ANYTHING happens.

I don't know if he did anything but he deserves fair treatment while Wikipedia is on path to convict him before any charges but tabloid gossip are even made.

This is embarrassing! Georgeivs vid (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Your deletion of three neutral sentences and removing any mention of the allegations is not the answer. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The past discussions show that there was a sharp disagreement if ANYTHING should be in the introduction section with many pointing out the fact, not allegation, that it's too soon, and that he is only being accused of a crime and has no charges, and denies all the accusations. i hope when someone accuses you of a crime the jury waits to see actual evidence. Or is that the point? There is no evidence so we try him in the court of public opinion? If you can't neutrally state

1. This is all accusations-only, and mostly whipped up since November 2014 2. He's never been charged and denies all accusations 3. This is wildly out-of-character of his 5-6 decades of work, much of it public 4. Howabout that no charges are likely to ever be brought against him? Etc. then it shouldn't be in the article and the accusation section should be trimmed more. Georgeivs vid (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

How about you stop speculating about his character and likelihood of charges and stick to what appears in reliable sources? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that the key question here is whether putting it in the lead gives it WP:UNDUE weight. Given that there was just a RFC that determined that the issue was given undue weight in the article up until now, and given that it was just dramatically pared down, I think adding it to the lead was clearly a mistake. --Aquillion (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Related to all this is Autumn Jackson, in her article tabloid sources are claiming all sorts of disreputable things that are reported as fact on Wikipedia. I don't have the desire to go through it all I would like for someone better at knowing which sources are allowed would look at it. Georgeivs vid (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

William Claude Harper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mr. Harper's bio is not accurate. A Ms. Fleischman submitted a thoroughly researched bio about him just recently. Unfortunately your administrator rejected it saying it was not as good as the original. How do we correct this situation?

Sincerely, W. Benjamin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnjmnwllm (talk • contribs) 19:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bnjmnwllm: Well, looking at the other thread on this page, it would seem that Ms. Fleischman has a conflict of interest with the subject. While that wouldn't disqualify her from editing the article, it does place her edits under deeper scrutiny, to make sure she's citing secondary sources whenever possible and maintaining neutral point of view. —C.Fred (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Already addressed at this noticeboard, here. The recent revision of the article left it a mess and did not comply with Wikipedia's standards for formatting, referencing or tone. The original version was restored. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

To better reply to your question, the best way to correct the situation would be to advise Ms. Fleischman to spend some time learning about Wikipedia, its policies and its manual of style before she attempts to revise this or any other bio. It's pretty clear she did not do so before she prepared the last revision. I will leave a message on the Talk page of the user who submitted the revision with some links to these resources. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you believe there are specific inaccuracies with regard to content in the existing article, please identify them in a message on the article's Talk page so that other editors can either correct them or point out/find sources that support them. Dwpaul ^Talk

Providence (religious movement), which involves all sorts of accusations against the living head, is currently undergoing an upheaval and more eyes would be appreciated. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The page seems to be constantly edited by anonymous sources removing pieces and sources considered detrimental. The page was already semi-protected. There is a current legal dispute pending in the italian version of the page, the admin of the Italian version provided to obscure the page and considered it of no enciclopedic relevance, due to the low calibre of the person. Even more so should be of no enciclopedic value in the English version.

For this reason, and the controversy and edit war going on, I propose the page for deletion. Raghnar (talk)

Afd is thisaway --> WP:AFD.--ukexpat (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, sorry I'm a bit lost sometimes with the nuances Raghnar (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Hae Min Lee‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have cleaned up obvious BLP issues, but given recent editing activity, I'd appreciate additional eyeballs on this article. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

SageRad (talk · contribs) has disclosed at WP:COIN that he has had off-Wikipedia conflicts with David Gorski on Gorski's personal blog. SageRed has tried to edit Gorski's biography to relate the nature of this conflict, without reliable sources. He was warned about a WP:COI arising from his off-Wiki contact with Gorski, so he himself brought the matter to WP:COIN. However, since it was properly pointed out that bringing an off-Wiki conflict into a Wikipedia biography is a serious breach of WP:BLP, the matter was closed at WP:COIN. I am raising it here so that appropriate discussion and action can be taken. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Whether there is a COI or not is more or less irrelevant. SageRad's personal spat with Gorski is of no relevance to Wikipedia, and wouldn't be even if it was sourced. Nobody has the 'right' to post on someone else's website, whether it is Gorski's blog or here on Wikipedia, and trivial disputes like this are of no encyclopaedic significance whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

If the nature of the conflict does not appear in reliable sources now or in the future, and yet SageRad at some future time describes the conflict in the BLP, then action could be taken, but not until then.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

SageRad has already twice attempted to bring the conflict into Wikipedia: here and here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

And he's since had policies (particularly WP:BLP) explained to him in detail - so if he does it again, he can expect sanctions. I suggest we leave it at that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I may take exception with the previous two comments, but i would like to post this statement. There was an editing conflict, so i will post this and then return to the last two comments if i must.

Well. Let us hold a good dialogue here. Let us be philosophically accurate. Let's separate out the issues. I would to not be banned from editing any particular page for the reason that i have had some "contact" if you call it that, with the person.

I would suggest that anyone coming to this place read this discussion for background and for my case.

I ask anyone to take the time to think carefully.

The reliability of my sourcing is a separate issue. This is solely about whether i should or should not be banned from editing that page in the future due to having have some exchange with Gorski in comments on blogs.

I fully grant that the statement was not "reliably sourced". That's ok. However, i do not believe that i should be locked out of editing that page due to having had "words" with Gorski.

Let me also correct one fact in the summary above. The statement "He was warned about a WP:COI arising from his off-Wiki contact with Gorski, so he himself brought the matter to WP:COIN" is not correct. I brought this issue to WP:COIN because i was listed as not able to edit that article. It was not because of a warning, but because of an action. Let's get that clear. I'm not reposting the edit that i did, and i am not edit warring. I simply do not want to be banned from the page on the principle of the thing.

So let's even leave it there. Will you remove the ban on my ability to edit that page?

As to the significance, however, i would dispute that. The information source "Science-Based Medicine" is being presented prominently in the article, and is also cited as a source. However, if that source bans commenting based on differing viewpoints, then it carries a quality that deserves description, as that becomes a feature of that information source.

If there were a quack source that banned people from commenting with science-based evidence, then it would be clear and would be notable that the quack source is exercising comment censorship.

If there is a site posing as exceedingly rational, and yet it prevents some people from commenting because the evidence that they present, meaning such things as peer-reviewed journal articles of high quality written by, for example, Monsanto scientists themselves, then that source may not be quite as exceedingly rational and trusting in the scientific method as it appears to be, and may carry an agenda.

I think it's a fair thing to point out an agenda in an information source, or to characterize it, rather.

Censorship is very important, and transparency is important. These are very notable things that i believe deserve placement in articles about information sources. That is the principle upon which i am operating in terms of judging that to be relevant.

You don't agree that it is censorship because it's a "private blog". If a forum appears to be public and open, and yet some participants are blocked based on an agenda, then that is censorship. If it's clearly a private, invitation-only type of forum, then it's not censorship. To me, a webpage with commenting generally is considered to be open for public commenting, and a pattern of blocking comments or people due to content of the comments or perceived position of the commenter is then censorship. The website in question does not state that people are banned from commenting based upon perceived position.

The ironic thing is that i was using scientific evidence to discuss the topic, and i really looked forward to doing that in a civil way with people there.

Anyway, all that may be moot, as basically i want the ban on my participation at that page to be removed. It's not that i'm wanting to keep that statement in there. SageRad (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, now i guess i must return to the last two comments there.

"SageRad has already twice attempted to bring the conflict into Wikipedia: here and here. " -> actually, that is one change, and then someone objected saying it was unsourced, and so i sourced it, not properly, i admit. But it was also making the point that Gorski's claim about his own victimhood of attempted censorship was sourced only to his own blog. SageRad (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

So then, the next comment: "And he's since had policies (particularly WP:BLP) explained to him in detail - so if he does it again, he can expect sanctions. I suggest we leave it at that." because of serialization issues, this was based on the assumption that it's happened twice, but as i just explained it has not. Thus, it is not edit warring. And secondly, i had not had BLP mentioned until later, so that order of events is also off, so i would say that comment is based on false assumptions and perhaps should be struck. SageRad (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

To be blunt, Wikipedia doesn't give a flying fuck about your personal spat with Gorski. He is perfectly entitled to ban anyone he chooses from his personal blog, and that is no more 'censorship' than me being prevented from tattooing the word 'halfwit' on someone else's forehead. Go away and start a blog on it if you like, but stop wasting our time here - before we oblige you to, by exercising the same right that Gorski did... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

And lastly, it's not just "personal spat" and in fact to me it's not personal at all, but it's an incident of censorship in a source of information that is used to support some things and not others, and therefore it's relevant to public knowledge. How relevant? Good question. How much weight? Good question. But it's not a personal spat. It's a political occurrence. SageRad (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong in regard to your understanding about censorship, and the tattoo analogy, sir. Would you like me to explain more? SageRad (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

No. Go away. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @SageRed: You are complaining that you were "censored" from posting comments on Gorski's website, as if you had an inalienable right to post comments on his website. You do not. It is his website, and he has the right to limit who comments on it. Further, we have only your word that this "censorship" ever occurred, and we have no idea the nature of the comments that you made that led him to ban you. Since there are no reliable sources to tell us that information, your comments about his censorship have no place here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Mother of God. My eyes see it, but I still don't believe it. You sourced a contentious claim in a BLP to a comment on a Wikipedia talk page??? Do you have the slightest clue how many degrees of industrial-strength wrong this is? You should be banned not just from the Gorski article but from all BLPs. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

SageRad is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia, but to right great wrongs. Either they immediately desist, or they should get banned. A topic ban is another option. That would give them the opportunity to edit other topics and learn how things work here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'd support a topic ban. It's very clear that SageRad is editing the page because he's angry that Gorski removed comments from his website. Like others have said, it's Gorski's website and he can do whatever he wants- if he wanted to turn every comment into 80s pop song lyrics, that's his prerogative. All we have about this is your account of things- for all we know your comment (assuming it happened) was laden with profanity and/or hostility. In other words, it's entirely possible that your post was deleted based on reasons that have nothing to do with you disagreeing with Gorski but because you were verbally abusive to him. The point is, we have no way of knowing if you're as much of a victim as you claim to be. Even if you were, the fact is that unless this is covered in reliable sources (newspapers, scholarly journals, academic texts) then there's no reason for it to be added to the article. You insisting that it be added to the article comes across as a one person crusade against Gorski. Want this stuff added? Provide reliable sources that aren't blogs, forums, and so on. At this point you pretty much have two options: accept that you cannot include the censorship claims on the Gorski article or get blocked from editing. I have absolutely no doubt that if this were to go up for an official vote on whether or not to topic ban you, you will be banned from editing his article. The odds of you getting Wikipedia editors (at least any that are familiar with BLP standards) to agree with you are practically nonexistent. I'm sorry to be harsh, but I don't really see where you seem to understand or want to understand Wikipedia's BLP policies. The policy is pretty straightforward: you cannot make claims on an article if they are not backed up with enough coverage in independent and reliable sources to show that it should even be mentioned in the first place. Forums/blogs/threads are not good enough. Your say so is not good enough. Only the type of sources covered at WP:RS are good enough and even then you have to include a lot of sourcing if someone could claim that it's libelous or that the article reads like a tabloid that includes every rumor and speculation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Also, be aware that your posts here will make all of your prior edits seem suspect. I mean, if you are unwilling to understand how what you're trying to add violates one of Wikipedia's most serious and important policies then how can we trust you to understand and follow the others? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You're all kind of missing part of the story. The original article included the claim that a group was trying to censor Gorski or prevent him from blogging, and that claim was fully taken from Gorski's own blog claim about it, with the whole tone of that and all. I removed that, as my sole edit, originally.

• Then, it was reverted, and i posted for comment on the talk page. Nobody replied. Then, later, i commented again. Nobody replied. Then, to make the point, i added my own claim and sourced it to my own blog. I could have made a blog somewhere else, but to make the point, i just stated it on my talk page, and sourced it there.
• Do you all see that point?
• Do you also recognize that i am not seeking to put that claim back in the article?
• Do you see that i am not "edit warring"?
• Do you also see that there is an equivalence between a claim by a person simply written on a blog?
• And also, censorship is a more serious subject than just who "owns" the blog. There is a lot of thought on this, and there is the concept of an effectively public forum.
• And also, i *am* here to make an encyclopedia. I am rather confused because both Tokyogirl79 and BullRangifer are working with me on the article on the hoe, which you can see in this talk page discussion and you can also see the lengths that i will go to in order to find the most accurate presentation of reality to make the article as useful and reliable as possible. We're talking about names of hoes in so much detail and i have even just written to the author of a 2014 book to ask him his sourcing on the term "dego hoe"... in order to avoid a likely WP:CIRCULAR -- please give admission of this. I'm working really hard there for accuracy. That's what i bring to this. And in this case, please do open your mind to the notion that censorship also occurs in the fourth estate, even when some entity "owns" a media source. Please even read the first paragraph of Censorship here in our beloved Wikipedia. I think that is relevant when an article discusses prominently and even sources to a source that is exercising censorship.
• So, i would love to hear your thorough responses, admissions or denials to these questions, with explanations. This is how they do it in lawsuits. There is a stage of admissions, and this seems to be useful here. SageRad (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned that the David Gorski article is not neutral. It's got a serious bias. There's a lot more to this than the versions of the story you're echoing. There is a lot of serious thought that must go into deciding what's accurate and what's suitable for an article here. I am willing to do that work. SageRad (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You're not the right person to contribute to that effort. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Where is completion of dialogue? Where is care and thoroughness?

Where is any attempt to address the majority of my points in this dialogue?

Where is the process of admissions or denials of points? SageRad (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

No matter if you're doing good elsewhere, you have a COI regarding Gorski, so it's simply off-limits for you, so stop all discussion of the matter anywhere at Wikipedia, even on your own talk page and policy pages. A topic ban has that effect, and the ban can be formalized easily, if it hasn't already.

Your blog can only be used as a source regarding yourself on your own biography here, if you are notable enough for such. His blog is usable, with limits, on his own article per WP:ABOUTSELF, and in some instances (because he's a notable expert) in other articles. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Where is any concern at all about the original lack of dialogue on the article's talk page?

Where is any admission that i began this edit by removing a bad source, and that was reverted, and then i asked about it on the talk page, and got no response in a reasonable timeframe?

Where is the admission that only after that, did i add my claim, to make the point about the insufficiency of the original claim sourced to David Gorski's own blog claim?

Where is any concern at all about anything except putting me down?

Do you see the strangeness of all this? SageRad (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I will happily agree to not edit the David Gorski page anymore, but there is a lot more at stake here. This original question is about BPL policy, but there is also a lot more material here. Why the threats of banning from a whole topic, and why the assumptions that i am doing wrong consistently? SageRad (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

There are no assumptions. The editors who have commented here have read what you have written, pretty carefully I imagine, then told you why your behaviour isn't acceptable. You haven't yet heard them. I'm hoping you'll take a step back before you get topic banned. stop being angry at the injustice you perceive. -Roxy the Mainstream dog™ (resonate) 18:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

There is not sufficient completion of dialogue. There are wild claims unredacted. There is much evidence that many people commenting have not fully comprehended the situation due as evidenced by their comments. SageRad (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Along with the sound advice poster here by several editors you should also try to understand that Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs - real or perceived. MarnetteD|Talk 18:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'm trying to think of a good way to phrase this. I don't really doubt that he was removing blog quotes- it's not an unusual tactic for antivaxers in general, let alone for authority figures. However all we have here are self-published sources- not coverage in independent and reliable sources. It might have happened but because the accusation of censorship is a pretty serious deal and can be considered libelous, Wikipedia needs to have a lot of coverage to not only really help show that this is happening but that it's worth mentioning in the article. If it's only sourced to self-published sources then it's entirely possible that Gorski could sue Wikipedia to have the material removed and/or sue for damages. People have made those threats before and unless Wikipedia really covers its butt, the person could have a pretty good case- especially if they think that some part of Wikipedia was aware of the issue and didn't step in. If you can find coverage in places like newspapers, academic sources, and the like, it can be included. If it's just SPS, it cannot. However because you clearly have a very strong personal emotion towards Gorski, it is not a good idea for you to edit the article because you will be likely to insert your own personal feelings/bias/opinions into the writing. Under the same brush we wouldn't want an extreme Gorski fan to edit the article either and would make the same requirements of them as far as sourcing goes. That you can't really see the points being brought up here shows exactly how strongly you feel about this and why it's a bad idea for you to edit on this subject. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Tokyogirl79: To correct one really minor point in your post: Gorski is not an anti-vaxer; he is an outspoken critic of the anti-vax movement. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I can indeed see the points being brought up, and i accept some of them, and i have objections or clarifications or further questions about others of them.

I feel strongly about avoiding bias in articles, and i see that there is a lot of bias on many articles in many directions. I am working to correct those biases, sometimes, to help bring a more neutral point of view.

I will voluntarily recuse myself from any further edits to the David Gorski article. That is ok.

I do point out that the original edit that i made was indeed to remove an accusation that was sourced to Gorski's writing about another group. I had no knowledge about that other group, and no relation to them, and i could not find other sources on that incident in a cursory search, and therefore my first edit was indeed to remove a claim of a self-sourced nature, from the article.

That edit was then reverted.

I did not revert i back. I posted to the talk page.

I got no response. I posted again to the talk page. Again no response. Reasonable time elapsed.

I made the second edit, which was my assertion sourced to me that he censored me.

That was my mistake. I do recognize that was not sourced correctly.

I was attempting to make a point in a case where i had a concern and nobody discussed with me on the talk page, and simply reverted my original edit.

And it sure did get attention!

Now, i would not do that same thing again. I learned from this. A lot.

However, there is still the remaining issue of that page containing a he said / she said event from only one self-sourced side of the story. I'm concerned about that, though i am recused, and i will not be editing that.

Having strong feelings, though, is not in itself a disqualifier. I love hoes and therefore i'm editing the article on hoes. I do not like Monsanto as they polluted the rivers near my birthplace, and therefore i care to make their page accurate in regard to PCB pollution. This is alright. This is even a good thing. To do it without bias in the article content is the thing. SageRad (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you take a couple of days off, then return to the Gorski talk page, and open a new discussion, particularly if you have decided not to edit the article again. I bet you find a number of eds willing to try to understand the issue, and who will examine any proposal you want to make, and discuss a new beginning to this. I still cant figure the whole thing out. I have to say that you may not get what you want, but people really haven't been unreasonable with you, and they will WP:AGF. You might find you think a little less ill of eds here too. -Roxy the Mainstream dog™ (resonate) 18:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Leighton Meester reportedly is pregnant. However, as we've encountered before, this comes from anonymous sources. Celebrity-watchers on her page, however, are inserting the claim — which neither Meester nor her husband nor her representatives have confirmed — as fact. I believe we generally wait for confirmation, so I ask members of the Project to keep this page within your scope of attention. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you check for other news listing this information? [26] Is People Magazine reliable in this? [27] Many other news sources cover it as well. Dream Focus 00:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: there are sufficient reliable sources to verify that the subject is pregnant, but this is better off at WP:BLPN or WP:RSN than here. Us Magazine, Entertainment Online, Cosmo', HuffPo, Time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with RightCowLeftCoast on both points; I don't know why this was posted here, nor why reliable sources are being dismissed out of hand by the OP as "tabloids". postdlf (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I posted on the wrong talk page — I was looking for WikiProject Biography's talk page and somehow took a wrong turn and landed here. My apologies.

All those outlets, some of which are attributing others on this list, make the claim based on anonymous, unverifiable, shadowy "sources." While that might be newsy, unconfirmed claims are simply rumors being reported. I didn't think Wikipedia traffics in rumors and gossip.

The reason I used "tabloids" — and perhaps I should have said "tabloid" — is that all of this stems from the tabloid site PopSugar.com, the original website that showed photos of her. Anyone can PhotoShop images, and heaven knows celebrity hoaxes are nothing new.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)