Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive142

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

List of polyamorists

List of polyamorists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cooltobekind (talk · contribs)

This article needs attention. I keep removing improperly sourced entries based on original research into subject's relationships, but they keep being returned. Polyamory is a sexual preference and covered by WP:BLPCAT which includes lists - living people should of course not be included unless they self-identify with the term, regardless of what relationships they may or may not be in or have been in. And of course, even for the deceased, the subject must be identified with the term by a reliable third-party source, not by the original research of a single Wikipedia editor. Yworo (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless WP:RS can be found that refers to a particular individual as 'polyamorist', it is clearly WP:OR to apply the term - and even if such a source can be found, it may well be questionable to apply what amounts to a fringe term/neologism to the individual concerned. The list looks to me to be little more than a coatrack for a particular minority perspective on human sexuality - and one that actually tells us little about the individuals labelled as 'polyamorist' in any case. Human sexuality is a lot more complex than the simplistic shoeboxing implied in the article - which if it isn't merely WP:OR, is dubious pop psychology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The entry on H. G. Wells really took the cake. Cited only to the statement in Experiment in Autobiography saying "I have loved several people very deeply" - doesn't say sexual love, doesn't say "at the same time", doesn't say "multiple sexual relationships". Nearly everybody has "loved several people very deeply", but loving a parent, a friend, and a spouse doesn't make one polyamorous. He's not living, but sheesh, that doesn't even rise to the level of "original research". Yworo (talk) 07:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Polyamory is not a 'sexual preference' - it is a broad term covering multiple consenting relationships - it is also a sexuality, (i.e. some people are born polyamorous, with attraction and love for more than one individual). Yes, sexuality is very complex, and I do not mean to shoebox, but merely record a list of consenting relationships involving multiple parties. I feel polyamory includes this - User Yworo does not. My arguments regarding clarification and use of the term 'polyamory' are outlined in the talk page on the article. If polyamory is not the best term for these kinds of relationships, what is? Cooltobekind (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Some of the references I used were taken from other wikipedia articles, so I assume they had already been subject to scrutiny Cooltobekind (talk) 07:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

We are constrained to use the term or terms used by the reliable source being cited. If no term is used, there is no basis for inclusion in any list or category, since we are not permitted the luxury of original research. Polyamory is certainly a sexual identity and covered by WP:BLPCAT. Sorry I used the wrong, though certainly related, term. Yworo (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) It doesn't matter whether it's a sexual or a gastronomic preference. Unless there is a reliable source asserting that an person is a polyamorist, or a connoisseur of jellied eels, we do not say so, either in the text or by categorisation. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'd take this further: I'd suggest that only explicit self-identification as a polyamorist would justify inclusion on a list - anything else will imply that we know more about relationships than the participants... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Definitely - self-identification in a reliable source (and relatively recent). What are the articles that you mentioned, Cooltobekind? Dougweller (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think requiring self-identification as a universal principle is going too far. But without self-identification the sources need to be rock-solid reliable. Cusop Dingle (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The list contains people who may have had affairs, but categorizing them as "polyamorous" with a claim (OR?) that such is a specific "desire" runs quite afoul of WP:BLP for living people, and of WP:OR for the dead ones. I am here positing that categorizing people as "polyamorous" is "contentious per WP:BLP, and that adding a definition for "polyamorous" here is "original research" at best. Collect (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with that stance. If the list has been suffering from problems with OR, then we should avoid listing people as poly unless a reliable source (which probably includes the subject, if they're alive) says explicitly that they're poly or uses clearly equivalent wording. Of course a different word or phrase might be used in non-English sources. Apparently-overlapping periods of relationships ≠ polyamoury. Affairs ≠ poly. "I have loved several people very deeply" ≠ poly. bobrayner (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

My polyamorous acquaintances are extremely angered by the idea that adulterers are polyamorists! The two concepts encompass such different worldviews that it's hard to say just how wrong that idea is. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Query: would changing the title make any difference for users skeptical about the list? "List of people in poly relationships" or something? Re AndyTheGrump, the word's first documented appearance is in 1992 so requiring self-identification as such (unless I'm misunderstanding you) would exclude some people who have really notably been in poly relationships as documented by biographers and historians. (And yes, obviously adultery, serial monogamy, and original research should be excluded.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What is this? Is this a list of people who have openly had more than one sexual partner at a time - and sticking the label "polyamerist" on that? Or is it a list of people who have wanted to (which might include a high number of the male population)? The problem here is suggesting people who have lived (even for a time) in a particular style of sexual relationship are linked by some form of shared "sexuality"/desire. That's abject nonsense. Even if we limit this to people who have self-described as polyamerous - what the hell did they mean by that? This just doesn't look a useful list at all. Suggest deletion.--Scott Mac 03:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The place to suggest deletion is WP:AFD. --Jayron32 03:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that I would constrain this article to people identified in reliable sources as polyamorous. Although there are many similar ideas in many other cultures, they have subtle differences that make any attempt to create a list based on the definition of the term fraught with peril and prone to OR. I'm especially concerned that this list may accumulate historical figures who the editor perceives as having been polyamorous when they lived before the term was invented in a culture that didn't even possess an equivalent concept. To make an analogy, many people would consider down-low men to be gay, but there are distinctive differences between the down-low and gay communities and cultures, and they would take great offense to such a classification. We should avoid getting distracted here by the many misunderstandings about the definition and nature of polyamory appearing in this thread. Dcoetzee 03:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- So, it would be a "list of people who have at some point described themselves as polyamerous"? I'd say that's the definition of an indiscriminate list of trivia.--Scott Mac 03:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  - How is it different from List of bisexual people etc in terms of scope? sonia♫ 04:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
    - Again, we would need to allow for deceased/historical figures described in history books or biographies. Using only data from after 1992 is crazy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
      - Unclear what you mean, since the term was not coined until 1992, only history books or biographies written after 1992 would contain the term. The writers of those books would of course use data from before 1992, but we can't use that data directly. We could of course cite books that apply the term to historical figures. Yworo (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
        I mean that some users are stipulating that the people in question must have self-identified as poly, which omits a large number of people well-known (through biography and history) to be poly who did not live to see the coining of the term. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
        I don't think anyone has suggested that self-identification be applied to non-living people. This is the BLP noticeboard after all, and primarily discusses how to treat living people. Yworo (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
        OK, perhaps I misunderstood. No one specified living, but you're right that perhaps it was implied. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Another issue, it appears that Category:Polyamory has been being used to collect the same sorts of historical figures who predate the term. Yworo (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've now cleaned this up... Yworo (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

William C. Bradford

The Wikipedia entry for Dr. William C. Bradford contains malicious and factually false information (however "cited") aimed to damage his reputation and his ability to retain employment. Dr. Bradford is a relatively unknown person and this article contains irrelevant details; he is unable to respond directly due to a nondisclosure agreement. A smear campaign ensued with misleading information having been published, which is now being cited in this Wikipedia article. The existence of this article is tantamount to cyber-bullying, and it should be struck in its entirety from Wikipedia, with all new entries barred. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.93.73 (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The blog/opinion column is not RS for the contentious claims made AFAICT and I removed that section. Collect (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Good move. The whole tenure dispute section is given, I think, way too much weight in the article, and could probably be trimmed down significantly to address the issue without giving a blow by blow account. Also, I'd point out there are other BLP concerns here, beyond just Bradford, as numerous faculty members are named. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 14:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I trimmed down the tenure controversy section a whole lot (maybe too much, but wanted to err on the side of caution), and am watching the talk page if the OP, or others, want to come over there and discuss any further changes. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 15:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Bart Chilton

Resolved

– Unsourced nonsense removed from article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Came across this on the entry on CFTC commissioner Bart Chilton. Doesn't quite sound right, does it?

"Chilton is also known as the father of awesomeness and being amazing. Chilton is considered to be feared by Chuck Norris, Tim Tebow and The Most Interesting Man in the World."

Rajeevtk (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I removed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael French

This article has sources and statements that must be considered. His sexuality is currently disputed, as this living person, Michael French, himself has not yet confirmed officially his sexuality. Tabloids may say something, but they have reputation as unreliable. Moreover, he has a driving ticket. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The Sunday Mirror cite appears not only "dead" but "removed" from the Mirror site - thus it is not reliably sourced as a claim and I removed it. The driving ticket is totally useless as a major item in a person's personal life. Collect (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked up the Mirror article in Newsbank, it's entirely based on quotes from unnamed sources. Clearly fails WP:BLPGOSSIP. January (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Zakir Naik

Can we call Zakir Naik Sunni although he doesn't identify himself as such?

My answer is definitely not, but there's a discussion at Talk:Zakir Naik where there is an editor disagreeing with this. I'd like more input. I'll add a pointer to the talk page to here. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I've commented on the Talk page, but I don't see the answer as a no unless we're identifying him as Sunni in a category or infobox. At the same time, I didn't see sufficient reliable support to put Sunni in the body, either.

As an aside, I edited a recent addition to the Criticism section and, even as rewritten, I'm uncomfortable with the material. The sentence now is "Khaled Ahmed criticized Naik for 'indirectly support[ing]' Al-Qaeda by referring to Osama bin Laden as a 'soldier of Islam'." It is from an opinion piece written by Ahmed in a reliable source. Any opinion on the matter?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why this sort of question keeps coming up. We don't put anything in the encyclopaedia unless it can be verified by a reliable source. If a reliable source describes him as Sunni (or blue-eyed, or left-handed, or deaf in one ear, or ....), or there is a credible attribution to the person themselves (for a non-self-serving assertion), then yes. Otherwise no. Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This "sort of question" will always come up because it stirs up editors and because the policies are not interpreted in the same way by different editors. I would like to add that I've elaborated on my statement about the Sunni addition on the article Talk page; in my view, it's a bit more complex than I made it out to be in my first statement there and in my statement here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Don Grady

Don's birth given name is Don (Italian origin) not Donald(English origin) middle name is Louis (after his father) Agrati.

Don Louis Agrati NOT Donald Michael Agrati which is what is currently posted on Wikipedia.

I am Don's wife, Ginny of 26 years. I can scan you a copy of our marriage license or his birth certificate for verification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.183.90 (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a published source which says so? We need sources that are published to use them at Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. That would be very helpful, and would help us to get the article correct. --Jayron32 01:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It is also necessary to provide some kind of published link between the person Don Louis Agrati and the subject of the article. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

But if the sources fail to establish his name as Donald, we probably shouldn't be writing that either. When we have an absence of reliable sources in either direction, but a credible assertion one way, we should probably go that way. Buddy431 (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

@Cusop: His personal website, already linked in the article, states his birth name as Don Agrati. --Jayron32 04:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Don pardo

The family part of Don Pardo's bio does not mention that he has two older daughters. I dated one of them, Donna Pardo, when we were both in high school in Demarest, New Jersey in the early 60's. (Northern Valley Regional High School). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.228.184 (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Only to be added if accompanied by reliable sources. I briefly dated one of his daughters [1], which is of no interest to anyone, and doesn't necessitate her inclusion in the article.... 76.248.147.199 (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no information about his family in the article anymore. There was one sectiion on his son, but I've removed it as his son is not notable, and there was no need for a section on his son's life.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Timothy Greenfield-Sanders

Article about a major photographer, which appears to have been edited in large part by the subject. Lacks inline citations, but rather than stick tags on it, I'd appreciate others' thoughts as to whether there are concerns re: conflict, content and neutrality, or if everything looks fairly acceptable. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Puff/ad - removed a lot of such. Collect (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Paul Judge

This article needs eyes on it, there is so much unsourced information and most of the ref's are bare URL's. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Per BLP guidelines you're correct to have cut unsourced text, and though I didn't run a check I suspect some recent additions may have been copied directly from the subject's website. But the current article is, uh, naked--noncontroversial content could have been left, with templates noting the need for citations. A cursory Google search reveals sources to support the most important biographical outlines, and I've added some of these at the talk page. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Morgan York

- Morgan York is possible autobiog and is unreferenced

I'm not sure how serious the concern should be about the content. It doesn't appear potentially libellous (in the colloquial sense that its rude or contentious). It does read like either an autobiography, professionally doctored spewage, or infomercial though. not so much poorly written but not Encyclopedic. I've tagged it with a couple of templates and noted that there are dead links. I am just not expert enough to judge if it should be more severely dealt with. fredgandt 04:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I've removed the unsourced fan-mag business, which included everything short of her interest in pink unicorns. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Aww ;-) fredgandt 04:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Michael Le Vell

Brief earlier BLP mention

In September 2011 Le Vell was arrested on suspicion of a sexual offense. The issue of whether to include the arrest was discussed on the article Talk page in October, and it was left in. Today, an editor added a recent report that Le Vell was "cleared" and no charges would be made. Although I disagreed with the initial retention of the material, I even more strongly felt that all of the material should be removed now that the police have dropped the matter. Otherwise, even though he's been "cleared", it leaves the impression that he did something wrong. I'm relying on WP:CRIME for the removal. One of the more active participants in the previous discussion (and there is now a current discussion as well) insists on retaining the material based on: "BLP requires that all events that have received significant media coverage in reliable secondary sources should be mentioned". I'm not sure where the quote comes from (not from WP:BLP), although I vaguely recall the phrase from somewhere. I'd like other editors' opinions as to whether the material should remain in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Tough luck for him, but it is a signficant fact about him. BTW, the Crown Prosecution Service "decided there was insufficient evidence to charge." BBC News, 1 Jan 2012. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Why doesn't WP:CRIME ("A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator (or including material suggesting that any named person has committed a crime in any article), when no conviction is yet secured.") apply, and why is it a "significant fact about him" more than about any other person?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:CRIME addresses the issue of notability, ie whether there should be an article on someone, simply because of their involvement with a crime. This is clearly not the issue here -- Le Vell is notable for completely separate reasons, namely his acting career. Notability guidelines "do not directly limit the content of an article or list". WP:DUE would be the operative policy here, and I think that a sentence along the lines of the current Le Vell was arrested and bailed on suspicion of a sexual offence in September 2011, but cleared in January 2012 after the Crown Prosecution Service decided that there was insufficient evidence to charge him gives it "a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject". Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This was pruned back to avoid undue weight, but it is still within BLP. WP:WELLKNOWN describes a public figure as including a celebrity, which Le Vell clearly is. It would be most odd for his BLP to mention the Ratio Money controversy, which most people have never heard of, but not mention the September 2011 allegation, which, unusually for a soap star, received widespread coverage in reliable secondary sources (BBC, Guardian etc). BLP exists to prevent poorly sourced junk from getting into articles, not to override coverage in reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it also suggests not to include material when the subject was never convicted. This incident does not appear to meet either criteria 1 or 2 for perpetrators (see the footnote), so should not be mentioned. See also WP:HARM. Yworo (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I assume that "criteria 1 or 2" refers to WP:CRIME? As I explained above, that it not relevant here. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You haven't read all the way to the end of WP:CRIME. It also deals with what material to include in an article, not just whether a subject is notable for an article. Yworo (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Given the amount of media coverage that this has generated in the UK, it would look like censorship to remove it. It is doing no harm to point out what all the reliable sources said about it. This meets all the criteria for a WP:WELLKNOWN incident. Either that, or the BBC, Guardian and Manchester Evening News have all got it wrong.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Since the two BBC citations mention it, I think it would be fair to add that he strenuously denied the charges. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

There are no charges to strenuously deny. Youreallycan (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Quite correct: he strenuously denied the allegations. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Normally I am very cautious on BLP issues, but really cannot see the problem here. Removing this is overriding what the BBC and all of the British media thought about its notability.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I know it was reported but only in a basic pre charges manner. I think your being affected by the news aspect of this issue, - it has no long term encyclopedic biographical notability. No charges, nothing to answer. Youreallycan (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

There is the possibility of WP:RECENTISM, but this has generated enough reliable coverage over several months not to be a one day wonder.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It's over - nothing to report is the outcome. It reminds me of the justin Beiber is the father of my baby "not" story. Youreallycan (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That is a mediocre comparison. This was not a routine British tabloid junk story, as Le Vell's career would have been ruined if he had not been cleared. This is why the BBC, Guardian etc covered it. It is well within WP:DUE and BLP.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well , I don't support its inclusion for the reason I have stated. In 2011 Le Vell was accused of unspecified sexual allegations by an unnamed woman. The prosecution service refused to charge for lack of evidence. Youreallycan (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not support the inclusion either. Yworo (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't support inclusion in the article as it is. Because it is such a scrappy little article, the question of WEIGHT is all the more important. I would support inclusion within a fuller and more rounded bio. --FormerIP (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I just had a look and was a bit surprised at the scrappy-ness of the biography also. Youreallycan (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The incident meets WP:WELLKNOWN, and removing it would leave a significant BLP gap. This has picked up far more coverage than the Ratio Money incident.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I know there are a few small reports about it, I live in the UK and read the press and watch the TV and I only found out about this today. I think the press were quite professional in the way they kept a bit of a lid on this, ultimately - celebrities are open to any allegation from anyone and they are accused of all sorts. We have no obligation to report an unproven unspecified allegation from an unnamed person that was rejected by the prosecution service. As time moves on from the news of today there will be less and less reason to cover it. Youreallycan (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a new story, as it received widespread coverage in September 2011.(BBC and Guardian) I was initially against mentioning it, but it reached the stage when it would have been ignoring reliable media coverage. If the BBC and The Guardian think it is notable, there is no real problem.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, its now a historic news story because its over, allegationsd - no charges. What's even worse in cases like this in regards to WP:CRIME is that, he will never have the opportunity in a court of law to prove his innocence as he has not been charged. How far in the future is it till the en wikipedia is the primary reporter of this allegation factoid ? Youreallycan (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:WELLKNOWN again. Some allegations are notable even if the subject denies them. This is why citing WP:CRIME is irrelevant here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to point out WP:CRIME was 'corrupted' during the last week; I've raised the issue at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Suspicious_alteration_to_WP:CRIME and reversed the alteration since it seemed to to be unilateral edit not backed by consensus, so I hope the Le Vell discussion doesn't get too sidetracked by that guideline. On the separate issue of whether LeVell's arrest should be documented, I think it's important to take stock of the aims of Wikipedia: it is an encylcopedia, so its purpose is to document facts, not allegations. If he were simply arrested, investigated and released without charge then by only saying this we are perpetuating an allegation and I don't think this is fair to him. However, if there are 'facts' that surround the investigation (i.e. did Le Vell go on record at all? was he suspended from his job?) then these are facts about him and it is appropriate to document that type of thing. Betty Logan (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Le Vell made no comment on the allegations for legal reasons, other than to say that he strenuously denied them. He was not suspended by his TV employers while the police investigation was in its early stages, which was shown to have been the correct decision. It is possible that Le Vell will comment on the record on this incident at some stage, which is another reason not to be too quick to remove it from the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It is possible that Le Vell will comment on the record on this incident at some stage - if and when that happens, there might possibly then be justification to discuss it in the article. In the meantime, since there is clearly not a consensus to keep this material in the article, I'll remove it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Betty, I fully understand your concerns, and as I stated on the article's Talk page, you have a good point (although I wouldn't have used the charged word "corrupted"). I've notified the editor who changed the guideline. As for the Le Vell article, I fully agree that with you that even without the assistance of the now-removed language from WP:CRIME, the information should NOT be included in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact is that certain allegations were made, were investigated by police and were found to be unsupported by evidence for a prosecution. These facts were widely reported in mainstream news media with a high degree of reliability. These facts are clearly important in the subject's life. Hence we report them. We do not report the details of the alleged crimes, since that would give undue weight to these otherwise unsupported allegations. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Ehsan Mehmood Khan

Lock of WP:Reliable sources which should directly be addressed about the subject.

There is no any sources of third party which can establish the WP:Notability. And there are issues of WP:COI, and by an editor with several IP addresses, WP:Good faith edits have been reverted.Please take a look at talk page,and view history. I am not familair to use the tools.I am sorry for that.I hope experts of the WP:Policies and guidelines will give their opinion.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to tell whether Khan's really notable or just wants to be. However, I wouldn't say there aren't secondary sources in the article. I'm also not following your COI suspicion. I've cleaned up the article a bit, but I don't see much more to do with it unless someone wants to do some additional research on the subject.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

- Also, the stance of an editor with several IP addresses is full of suspicion. I thoroughly went through the edit history of the article since its creation. It rather proved that you User:Justice007 (formerly User:Ehsan Sehgal) have continuously been reverting and deleting the reasonably reliable references and external links provided by several editors operating from different IPs. There is no issue of WP:Notability or WP:Reliable sources at present. You appear to be evasive of going through the reliable sources provided within the article. At this stage, Khan's article carries a number of realiable references and secondary sources and is notable per WP:BLP standards beyond any shadow of doubt. Maintenance tags implied by you challenging the notability of this article have rightly been removed by another editor User:JC Bills who probably is the creator of this article . You are suggested to drop egoistic edit feud now and contribute positively to this article if you really have some stuff to share with.--SubContinentalAnalyst (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside the editor issues, which I don't care much about, I don't necessarily agree that the notability is clear or that the sourcing is great. However, as I commented on the article's Talk page, editors should not be reverting back to an earlier error-laden version just because they don't like the tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I invite all interested editors to look here. Khan's notability is clearly in question. SubContinentalAnalyst, I ask that you refrain from phrases like "egoistic edit feud" and implying that Justice is not a good-faith editor. He makes a lot of good points below which you would be well advised to answer. Furthermore, JC Bills being the author of the article does not give him special powers. NLinpublic (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

My note

I still disagree and in my opinion the mentioned references of the article do not reveal the degree of indepedent note,that would qualify the subject for WP:Notability. As notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. As the wikipedia policy, if no reliable third-party sources for an article topic,wikipedia should not have an article on it. And if a topic has not recieved significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject,it is not presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Significant coverage means that sources adress the subject directly in detail, and it is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material- Example, " The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Morten Walker-1992-01-06) Tough love child of Kennedy, The Guardian, "In high school,he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly trivial. And moreover, not all coverage in WP:Reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for examples, "Directories and databases,advertisements,annnoucements,columns and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined,despite their as WP:Reliable sources.Topic must be notable and direct addressed by the third party and connection of the source to the topic must be clearly indentified.In last,I would like to express my concerns relating to creator of the article,that it seems to be WP:Ownership,and violation of WP:Policies and guidelines,because BLP and Notability tags have been removed without explained summary,while there has been asked for waiting the result of WP:Consensus.I do not care what the result of consensus is,but I stand firm with WP:Good faith for effectiveness of wiki rules. Cheers.Justice007 (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Two comments. As to the notability issue, I agree that it's not clear that the subject is notable. You are, of course, free to nominate the article for deletion if you wish. As for the tag issue, there was discussion by more than one editor about removal of the tags, so I don't think it's fair to say that the tags were removed without explanation. The very latest removal of the tags didn't have an explanation in the edit summary, but in the context of the Talk page, I don't believe they were removed in bad faith.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:Consensus should be decided here,because for that, issue has been raised here not on talk page,and I think creator of the article should not remove the tags,he should have asked for that here,till result of consensus.Thus it's violation,isn't?. Justice007 (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Not really. First, this is not an issue of content, just whether the tags belong or not. Second, regardless, there's no reason why a consensus can't be reached on the article Talk page. That's one of the purposes of a Talk page. Indeed, it's better for it to be there rather than here unless someone believes there's an actual BLP violation or wants more input about the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It is content dispute,I was asked by User:Drmies to drop a note here.Please revisit talk page and read thoroughly,then decide.Thanks for your concerns.Justice007 (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I sort of see what you're referring to (indeed, two admins became involved on the article's Talk page), but I'm still at a loss. You came here expressing concerns about notability, not about content. If you have a content issue, what is it?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes actually my main concerns are notability of the subject,but somehow there is also violation of WP:Neutral point of view ,as removing tags because creator of the article just does not like it,and some sentences which I and you edited,were also reverted,and then reverted by you.That is not a problem,I am insisting for notability that should be addressed in the exact concept of the WP:Notability. I want to see the opinion of other editors too, sothat we can reach the WP:Consensus . Justice007 (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Now at Article for deletion discussion

- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ehsan Mehmood Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Youreallycan (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Brian Souter

Yet more shenanigans at our Brian Souter article, for the umpteenth time. Masses and masses of ip editing, constantly re-adding material removed by logged-in editors and vandal watchers. The latest round involves an editor using an ip adress sockpuppet to attempt to avoid detection. Duly reported. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are the only disruptive element on this article, and the article history shows that you have been reverting and deleting adequately sourced details over the course of several years now. You refuse to engage in discussion on the TALK page, and you simply delete warnings about disruptive editing on your own talk page. Whether you like it or not, Brian Souter is a controversial figure and Wikipedia is not here to make him look good. As long as the details in the article are accurate and sourced, they belong there as per WP:WELLKNOWN. And you are in no position to throw accusations around about IP/socks. Roguana (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have never, in my entire, long Wikipedia career made an edit while not logged in. So you can cut the foul accusations, both here and elsewhere. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, naturally we will all just take your word for it considering what an untroublesome editor you have proven yourself to be. How many warnings have you deleted from your TALK page now? Roguana (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If this is about the lede then it should be a summary of facts already in the article and not the place to introduce new material. I thought the addition from Roguana made for an unbalanced lede, both in terms of prominence and the tone in which it was written, so I've taken the opportunity to try to balance it out. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If you look closely Sam, I did not "add" anything to the article, I merely undid User: Mais oui!'s deletion of perfectly sourced and appropriate details from the lead section. And yes, these details were included in the article and so their inclusion in the lead was warranted because it is one of the things that Brian Souter is most well known for. I have no objection to the lead section being expanded (as you have just done), but I strongly object to editors removing sourced, accurate details just because it is unflattering towards the subject (which is what Mais Oui has been doing on this article for years). Mais Oui's actions are a blatant violation of WP:WELLKNOWN. Roguana (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering the size of his notability in regard to his support for this issue, as reflected my the size of the section - Brian Souter#Section 28 - I don't see why a minor mention in the lede as there is currently after Sam's write is undue. The current version of the lede is imo a much better version than the previous disputed version. Youreallycan (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Boris Berezovsky (businessman)

redux. An IP is inserting [2]. He had inserted it several times sans any source at all previously, and now uses a source which just does not say what he claims it says. Warning about misuse of sources was given and edit war to insert material contrary to WP:BLP also, but as he is an IP is is quite non-utile to try getting him simply blocked, I fear. Cheers - this is getting tiresome. Berezovsky might be Satan incarnate, but putting material into a BLP repeatedly which is not based on a reliable source and specifically not in the source then proffered remains contrary to WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be true that Boris Berezovsky has not taken legal action against the book but the problem comes in implying that that fact means it was not the subject of legal action or that Berezovsky does not dispute the contents. Because the claims in the book are the same as in the Forbes article, they would have been covered by the Forbes libel case. In the end the parties reached an out of court settlement in which Forbes (as publishers) withdrew one of the main accusations, so there was no formal judgment. In a 2001 interview with Berezovsky by Andrew in The Financial Times (2 January 2001, p 15) is the comment: "One book he says he has not read to the end is a highly critical text about himself, called Godfather of the Kremlin, by the Forbes journalist Paul Klebnikov, published in the autumn. 'Several people asked me to sign it but I refused,' he says." When Klebnikov was assassinated, The Times reported that Berezovsky denied the charges in the book (Jeremy Page, "Business editor shot dead in Moscow", 10 July 2004, p 23) and The Independent noted that reviews in Russia for the book were not positive: "Some said that his book about Mr Berezovsky - Godfather of the Kremlin; The Decline of Russia in the Age of Gangster Capitalism - was anti-Semitic in tone and overly critical of the tycoon at the expense of other key characters such as Russia's former president Boris Yeltsin." (Andrew Osborn, "Editor who unmasked super-rich of Russia is shot dead in Moscow", 10 July 2004, p 26). Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

And for an IP to claim that the Pravda source says that Berezovsky does not "contest" the book's claims? Isn't that a bit of a misuse of the source which does not make such a claim? Collect (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The IP has all the appearance and POV of the indefinitely blocked User Deepdish7 - see him in this diff, adding Berezovsky never contested the book in court. - and he also had a focus on Paul Klebnikov's book in relation to accusing Berezovsky for allegations of murder. I left the IP:80.4.251.95 a note asking him to either log in and request unblock or to stop editing as such is block evasion. - Youreallycan (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I semiprotected for 60 days. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That will be a help, thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to report edit warring and violation of Wikipedia deletion policy by user Collect (talk). The source reads "Klebnikov did not calm down after the court process and wrote a whole book about the notorious oligarch titled “Godfather of the Kremlin: The Decline of Russia in the Age of Gangster Capitalism.” Berezovsky did not take any legal action against Klebnikov after such a publication" (http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/19-08-2005/8781-berezovsky-0/). So it confirms the fact that Berezovsky never contested the book in court. I see this page is operated by a gang of Berezovsky supporters who try to whitewash the page big time170.148.198.157 (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

HUH? Examine [3] from IP80... which I reverted on my own user talk page, Then IP170... shows up and does [4], [5], [6] all within a matter of minutes. As everyone here knows, editors have control over their own user talk pages, and this pair(?) of editors seems to think that they are in control - to the point that they have committed exceedingly clear edit war on my user talk page. Note that I issued a warning to IP170... at [7].. And by the way guess who has edit warred agoin on my user talk page? [8]. Will someone take care of this wondrous example of s ingle-minded editor/editors? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Editors do have control of their talkpages, but erasing warnings is prohibited. And you are trying to refrain from the main discussion and the fact, that you edit-warred and violated Deletion policy on Boris Berezovsky page, as proven above. Someone please take action against him. Thanks170.148.198.157 (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Ok, first, removal of a talk page notice is considered to mean that the user has read and understood the material, and is not at all problematic, see WP:BLANKING. Second, to the extent that Collect's comments implied that the Pravda article did not state that Berezovsky did not file suit over the accusations in the book, obviously that is incorrect as the article does so state. However, I read his comments as stating that even if Berezovsky did not avail himself of legal process, the article provides insufficient support for the conclusion that he tacitly agreed with the accusations against him. The other comments here are in a similar vein. So, while there is sourced information for the proposition that Berezovsky did not file suit, there does not appear to be support that the sourcing is sufficient to state or imply that Berezovsky's failure to sue in court is somehow proof of his complicity. In the absence of consensus for the edit, I do not see how removal of the statement violates the deletion process or any other content guidelines. If you would like to gain consensus for the addition, I suggest that the appropriate case be made at Talk:Boris Berezovsky (businessman). Since Collect is aware of the discussion, and participating, I am going to temporarily semiprotect his talk page. (N.B., another admin already did so) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It was not alluded on Berezovsky page that he availed himself of legal process against the book. The amendment to Berezovsky article only said "Berezovsky never contested the book in court", that's all. It's not said that he availed himself of legal process, nor did the amendment say that Berezovsky tacitly agreed with the accusations against him. The fact that he did not file against Klebnikov in court for his book is still a fact, and I see deleting this fact from the article as violating Deletion policy. Thus I would appreciate if you could undo user Collect's unlawful deletion. And in any, in any case the fact that Klebnikov published a book which was a very extended version of the article, still has full right to be represented in that section of the article. Thank you 170.148.198.157 (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Any follow up on this, please? Does someone know what is the page on wiki where one can report violation of Deletion policy/vandalism?170.148.198.157 (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

~~WP:ANI might be the place, but watch out, there are lots of boomerangs flying around there.~~ I take that back, it's unnecessary escalation of dramah. Stick to the talkpage , start a WP:RFC or some similar content dispute resolution. Youreallycan (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Isaias Afewerki

Important negative information about this person appears to have been deleted by his supporters in order to hide the truth, as reported by various news sources, about the acts committed by him and his government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.27.143 (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Replace them if you have reliable sources. --BwB (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Plus, the article is poorly sourced in general. --BwB (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Christian Viveros-Faune

Claims "his writings have been published in...The New Yorker" (among other publications), however a search for any reference to him inside the magazine returns with no findings. Other searches confirm this: Mr. Viveros Faune has not had anything published in The New Yorker. The New Yorker has never even mentioned his name--ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.244.1.244 (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOCITE and also WP:BEBOLD - If it's uncited and your search reveals no confirmation you can either tag is as "citation required" or move it to the talkpage for discussion or from where someone can cite and replace. Youreallycan (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the article and reworked the reference section. There is currently no mention of The New Yorker. --BwB (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Fabio Barraclough

The subject of this biography has contacted me with strenuous complaints. It looks like a serious BLP case. I'm forwarding this to OTRS as well, because I think we need a lot of eyes on it.

The first line of his biography states that he was a money launderer and spy - without a source. He objects strongly. I have not yet checked the strength of the sources more generally, but it is not ok to start a biography in that way without a source front and center.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Very much agreed. Per policy, should it not be immediately removed (at least normally) if not oversighted? Ah, been done. fredgandt 16:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be promotion for a book - which does not even seem to support some of the claims made. Collect (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, should we have a [[Category:Possibly living people]]? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I also made a couple of reducing edits. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. If the content is to be expanded a bit, it will require strong citations and attribution to whoever is claiming this or that contentious detail. Youreallycan (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to confirm that OTRS has got this: ticket is 2012010310014919. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone bothered to look at the source? Jimbo's assertion that there was no source is incorrect: it was given in the subsequent section where the details of this claim were presented: Bell, Terry; Dumisa Buhle Ntsebeza (2003). Unfinished Business: South Africa, Apartheid, and Truth. Verso. p. 103. ISBN 1859845452. The discussion on pp. 101-102 is sufficient at least for the assertion that he was a spy (I don't see anything there about money-laundering, but then there are other parts of the book discussing Barraclough). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that discussion, which does not mention the word 'spy' at all, is not sufficient to make that claim. But in any event, my point was that this was in the first sentence of the article, and that sentence did not cite any source for this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The use of "spy" in relation to Barraclough comes on p. 100. Leads often do not repeat references given in later sections. It's fine to insist on one -- and there's no problem, because one is available. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And this book is reviewed, and the allegations of being a "paid informer" are repeated, in current reference [5], this article in the THES. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Mark Gordon

A contributor keeps replacing me (Mark's current wife) with references to his ex-wife. Please stop. We are trying to keep his page up to date and accurate.Thanks and best, Sally Whitehill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.176.234 (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you know of reliable sources that verify these marriages? Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

[9] verifies that Gordon and Whitehill are considered a family - not sure how best to reword that for the personal life section though. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is very poorly sourced. --BwB (talk) 10:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There's plenty of material to source the content to, but I've just had to blank most of it as a Copyvio of his ABC Biography Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Gia Paloma

There is content in this article that is defamatory and is disparaging to the person in the article. I am that person and have tried to remove some, not all, of the content and it keeps reverting back. Sources are not well-researched and I feel because of the nature of certain articles it produces both defamation pf character and a negative tone about the topic. How can I get certain things removed permanently? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1515garden (talk • contribs) 09:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Autobiography. Specifically the section entitled "Problems in an article about you". And instead of blanking large sections of the article, perhaps you could also bring up your specific problems with the article on the article's talk page at Talk:Gia Paloma. Dismas|^(talk) 09:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Have done some minor clean-up edits. If we have reliable sources for material, then it can be added to the article. --BwB (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I find it ironic that there's a "citation needed" template in the second sentence of this article: it's actually a blatant copyvio of this source. If the "nature of certain articles" is a problem, then that has nothing to do with defamation of character on WP's part, really. Doc talk 12:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Laurence Westgaph

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

The subject of this biography is a British historian, journalist and occasional television presenter, with a particular interest in the history of slavery. A Google search returned less than 4 000 results for me, which is a very small number for anyone who appears on television. I have concerns that the article is being used as an platform to spread details of criminal convictions. Westgaph received a suspended sentence for assaulting his best friend upon finding him in bed with his (Westgaph's) girlfriend. The very first edit on the article used only sources dealing with the assault. Is the section entitled "Legal issues" (which also includes a reference to a bankruptcy) warranted? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Shakehandsman again, that is exactly the sort of content he creates. Youreallycan (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And surprise, surprise, it uses the Daily Mail as the source for the convictions... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read the article again, the convictions are sourced to the Telegraph and BBC. The bankruptcy is only covered by the Mail so we can remove that i suppose.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

He uses the Daily Mail a lot as a reliable source. In May 2011 I did point him to the discussion about he Mail being rejected as a reliable source for anything controversial or contentious. Youreallycan (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The actual full content of that exchange is here: [10]--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ruth Davidson

In the section entitled 'Leadership of the Scottish Conservative Party' it is stated that Ruth Davidson sacked her employee for making sectarian remarks.

If one looks at the article which is given as a reference for this claim it can clearly be seen that the anti-Catholic sectarian remarks were not attributed to Ross McFarlane, but rather to a voice off camera.

I must insist that this rather defamatory error be corrected at once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmond25488 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

- I made a small write as the citation supports the report above - there is no support in the citation that Ross McFarlane made any sectarian remarks. Youreallycan (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Banana Man

Hi everyone, I just came across this edit to our disambiguation page Banana Man, and I wondered what you thought. Is the addition ok? I'm in two minds. It seems like it is a YouTube phenomenon, and not something that mainstream news sources or books have chosen to publish. I found these two references on Google News, but nothing else.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89999][11]. Let me know what you think. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The WND ref seems OK and I have added it to the dab page. --BwB (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look for me! I'll leave the link in. I'm pretty sure that DAB pages shouldn't have references though, so I'll take that out. I'll leave a hidden note there for anyone who's curious instead. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

WND is never a reliable source for anything other than their own views on things. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

- I removed it. It's not notable enough for the lede of his BLP so it's not a primary descriptor of him and as such seems undue to add him to the banana man disambiguation page. - The only other living person on the disambiguation page, is Sam Zemurray, who is clearly is well known as the banana man as it is states the nickname in the opening of the lede of his BLP, whereas for Ray Comfort this is not the case. Youreallycan (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

There is also a Banana Man reggae artist. I see he has no wiki page so I plan to start one once I have compiled sufficient verifiable reference material. Anyone have any suggestions how to make it show in the search engine as "Bannana Man (Reggae artist)" without titling the page itself as such? I'm still a bit new here. (Observation Station (talk) 07:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC))

HMAK

Resolved

– Article speedily deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

-This is article is defamation of character as much of the information is false. -I am a personal friend of the person this article is about and this is wrong and libelous. -HMAK never fought Wale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacroManagement (talk • contribs) 04:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that the article (HMAK) is a load of rubbish, I can't see any logical reason not to solve the problem by deleting it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I just went back over a year to get a version of the article that clearly was free of vandalism. I expect that I'll submit this to AFD later if someone else doesn't best me to it. In the meantime I have semi protected the article due to the months of unchecked vandalism. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 06:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I also threw a warning on the user who added the most blatent recent vandalism.--v/r - T P 14:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Anuj Bidve

- Anuj Bidve (student killed on Boxing Day whose family learned about it through Facebook)

In response to an OTRS complaint that a search on this name turned up a rather vulgar expression which would be upsetting to friends and family if they searched Wikipedia for this student killed on Boxing Day whose parents found out about his death via Facebook, I've created an article for him. I know he's dead but as he is recently dead I think it's still a BLP concern. If anyone would like to turn a bad hastily created stub into a decent article it would be a kind thing to do. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I am unsure that this person really qualifies for a wikipedia biography or that the murder is a wikipedia notable one. Perhaps WP:SALTing of the title or his name is a preferable option. I didn't find anything about him by searching http://en.wikinews.org - Youreallycan (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't either, but as I can find almost 3000 hits on Google News, perhaps the problem is Wikinews? See for instance [12]. In IP sock visited the talk page to attack me (I presume the sock has been following my edits) and added a pov tag, but couldn't be bothered to edit it. It does need more work. Dougweller (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Michael Nugent

This page has been the subject of vandalism by user Fexro. The change referenced below is irrelevant, inappropriate and deliberately provocative, containing a negative and crass implication about the subject and the nature of his relationship with his recently deceased wife. diff The user knows Michael Nugent personally and has been pursuing a vendetta against him for several years on various online fora. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkyderek (talk • contribs) 17:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

- After a quick look at the users additions to this biography left me thinking they could well be policy violating and were definitely controversial, I left the User:Fexro a note with a link to this report and a request to join in discussion here and to discuss and seek consensus prior to anymore contentious additions to the BLP. - Youreallycan (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

- I don't think he'll take you up on your offer. For the past two years or so, he has been pursuing a rather eccentric vendetta against the subject. It's largely been ignored as it amounted to little more than repeating the same irrelevant question and vague accusations on dozens of websites. See here for a prime example, (he posts as FXR). However, he's now making vicious personal attacks (albeit, rambling and idiotic ones) that cross a line. I don't believe he is dangerous but he certainly seems to be unhinged as can be seen from his "contributions". --Funkyderek (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi - At least I have pointed him in the direction of discussion and he is able to come here and explain his desired additions - if he replaces the disputed content without discussion I will be requesting his editing privileges are removed. Youreallycan (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately he's done it again; a bizarre insertion about tax codes in Ireland that's already been deleted. diff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkyderek (talk • contribs) 21:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Peter N. Devreotes

Peterdevreotes (talk · contribs) has created an article about himself in his userspace User:Peterdevreotes. I added the user space and noindex templates and deleted some material copied from his academic website just now. Looking at him I think he is clearly notable enough for an article and was wondering if anyone wanted to create one for him and advise him on COI. He may have thought he'd created an article on himself as new users sometimes get confused about main and user space. I also gave him a welcome message. Dougweller (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there is the basis of an article there, but at the moment (formatting aside) it is too resume-ish in tone and needs work to make it encyclopedic. I don't have time at the moment unfortunately. – ukexpat (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Douglas Youvan

Resolved

– Noncanonical indefinitely blocked as a likely sockpuppet of Nukeh.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

After I have caved in a lot on these External Links, placing them now in as 3 books without hyperlinks and only ISBN numbers, Crowsnest has once again deleted this material, calling it "spam" in the edit tag. I disagree and want either the external links or the books restored. I also want to reiterate that he attempted to delete one of Youvan's figures on Commons, only to be told by another editor that he should not be carrying the Creation-Darwin debate into another matter. Crowsnest has a long running fight going with Youvan, whom he stalks. Calling these books / external links "SPAM" is libelous. Youvan is President of his Foundation and this could affect fund raising. One day his books are up, the next day they are down. Look through the article's history. Crowsnest "has it in" for Youvan. Youvan is a biophysicist, former MIT Prof, and company CEO - who happens to also be a Creationist. He does serious, hard, honest work. If Crowsnest motive is secularism, that is wrong. If he "has it in" for Youvan because of previous affiliations that have resulted in legal settlements, then we have an awful mess here. Let's pray it's just religion, and remember, as strange as you might think someone's personal views are compared to yours, they still help all of us maintain our civil liberties. Jimbo wants diversity. What's better than a Creationist / Biophysicist now working on P v NP? Youvan is also responsible for the 4th figure down in the WP Genetic Code article derived from 1990 work at MIT. It was that earliest figure Crowsnest tried to delete and failed. He should also fail in this attempt to remove three very diverse book titles from one in the same author. Youvan and Dawkings would make a great debate! Let's not burn his books or slander his work as SPAM. Noncanonical (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's kind of hard to follow what you're saying. You accuse Crowsnest of have a battle with Youvan, who is the subject of the article. Is Youvan an editor on Wikipedia? As for the reversions of your additions, the article is about Youvan the scientist, and you want to include materials that have to do with Youvan, the creationist (his books on that subject and links to his website about . I'm not saying that's prohibited per se, but there's no context in the article for the insertion of that kind of material. And why does Youvan's website ([13]) talk about "Wikipedia politics"? What "legal settlements"? Bizarre stuff.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree all of this is bizarre and would take a lot of Admin time to track. To answer your questions: Youvan has an indefinite ban on WP editting. Of the three references or books, none has to do with Creation per see. The reason you don't know that is because Crowsnest deleted the links. One of the books, Questions of a Christian Biophysicist, has some questions about Creation. The book is entirely in the form of over 800 polemic questions. The book on pseudocolor is exactly what it says in the title. It also provides Mathematica source code. Youvan has worked on pseudocolor through out his entire career, from a Scientific American article with a lead photo of pseudocolored microbial colonies to the KCAT invention. His book extends this work. The other book, addressing P v NP, is a general topic that is usually addressed by people that have too much time on their hands! Hopelessly complex. Anyone is free to talk about "Wikipedia politics", right? The "legal settlements" can not be discussed at all as a condition of the settlement agreements. Standard procedure, correct? No defaming the other party after settlement. I want out of this mess between Crowsnest and Youvan. Please roll back the article and the discussion about 24 hrs and put another editor on it other than me. Thank you for asking questions rather than making assumptions. Noncanonical (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23: May I ask you a question? Do you understand why some people enjoy seeing other people being hurt? Noncanonical (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23: 2 hrs ago, I restored the book references. Those entires contain no links to either Amazon or Youvan's websites. That makes for a difficult look-up of ISBNs, but it is a good compromise if such links are not appropriate here. Let's see if Crowsnest has reconsidered, and just maybe this edit war is over. I look forward to working on other subjects. Noncanonical (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not call these books spam, but the qualification "spam" refers to your behaviour. You clearly stated you have a conflict of interest regarding Douglas Youvan on your user page. Despite that, and your knowledge about the WP policies on COI, you stay (re)inserting this material on the Douglas Youvan article and several article talk pages.

The reason I removed the material is that these self-published books are not related to the subject Douglas Youvan is known for. The fact that a sequence of SPA editors try to promote these self-published books and other original research by Douglas Youvan on Wikipedia makes that I have followed this more closely than I normally would do for something outside my direct scope op interest (physics of waves). This all started when Douglas Youvan (as User:Nukeh) promoted his original research on Wave power. -- Crowsnest (talk) 08:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Frédéric Talgorn

An editor, User:Critican.kane, added two middles names to the Frédéric Talgorn without including a source. I removed the information and requested that they include their source for verification. Despite multiple explanations on their talk page reagrding what constitutes a reliable source for challenged material in a BLP, the editor continues to restore the information with sources to celebrity gossip sites, online database type sites, and astrology wikis. As any attempt to explain why these sources are unsatisfactory have been met with personal attacks in edit summaries, perhaps someone could explain it to them? Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

WTF?? Okay, sry, for my bad englisch, im german and rarely speak or write in englisch. I am not an author for englisch wiki-articles. I just find informations in the official sites, like radaris.com of the birth indexes and add birthdates and full names of actors, composer, cinematographers, directors..... and so on.... I don't have an premium account for the CBI or other goverment databases, so i use the free searchsites.

I found the initial of Frederic Talgorn (a J) at radaris and use google for the full name - sometimes, i have luck and find, the full the name, so i can add it to the german wiki-articles (with the source), and if i have time, also for all the other languages. I make an Teddy to an Theodore and an Danny to an Daniel, and so on.....with sources in german articles, but not the others.

I added the full name without and source - this guy above me deleted it!

I added it again with one (1!!!) source - this guy above me deleted it!

I added it again with five (5!!!!) sources - this guy said, two of them weren't good enoug - deleted all five of them!!

I added it again with three (3!!!!!) sources (without the 2 other two, the guy complained about) - this guy above me deleted all three of them!!

for example. I just wrote an german article about the scriptwriter Hilary Henkin, IMDb says, she was born 1962 and in the mid 1970s a gogo dancer in nyc (between the age of 15 and 18) and wrote an filmscript in 1980 (with the age of 18). But the goverment site says, her second name is beth and she was born in 1952, not 1962. That makes sense. Can i add these informations?? Or should i stop ever do an edit in en-wiki - because this strange guy above will delete this information?? What is the policy of the en wiki?? Do you want want guys like Teddy Castellucci with no birthdate known?? Or an Theodore Ross Castellucci, born in 1965?? I'm out - good bye, en wiki -- Critican.kane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC).

I removed two externals as not wiki reliable sources and left him a note about it - that leaves this one alone - there are links to the site in 50 articles - is it alone enough to support the addition of two middle names?

- http://www.lesgensducinema.com/affiche_acteur.php?nom=TALGORN%20Frederic&from=dvdtoile - Youreallycan (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

My concern with this ^ link is that it appears to be essentially an IMDB type database for french language films. They do supply a reference for the date of birth they list but it simply says "Extrait de naissance n° 9321 (translation "Birth certificate n° 9321) which is not verifiable. I'm searching independently for something that meets WP:RS to include in the article, but unless someone can find something I'm not sure why we would keep the material in. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, as per my general agreement of your assessment of the last source I have removed it. Good luck with the searching. Youreallycan (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The search was rather short, since the inclusion of the middle names proposed by User:Critican.kane result in a grand total of 3 hits (three of which are Wikipedia) across all Google entities. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Did I undstood it right?? I can delete thousands and millions of Informations in the englisch wikipedia, just the advise "no reliable source"?? thanks - that will be fun. :D -- Critican.kane (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Christian Brothers Academy (Albany, New York)

Must reports about the criminal behavior of otherwise non-notable employees be included in school articles [14]? Parenthetically, is Smoking Gun an accepted source here? 76.248.147.199 (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It, The Smoking Gun is used here, our USA editors seem to like (and trust it) - I would never add it myself but there are around five hundred links to that website from en wikipedia articles and around another five hundred on en wikipedia talkpages. I removed the content as this photocopied, with blanked out bits, imo is not the kind of reliable source we should be using to add detail about living people. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/hot-teacher-du-jour?page=2 - Youreallycan (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Good enough. The larger rhetorical question regards BLP policy and the publication of criminal offenses involving non-notables. This received some media coverage in addition to SG, but I'm not clear whether it belongs. Thanks, 76.248.147.199 (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't imo but if it is re-presented with a couple of quality sources then WP:WELLKNOWN starts to come into play. At best a single sentence, in such and such a year a teacher was convicted of sleeping with a pupil. Sadly I have seen articles about schools created and kept purely to keep a otherwise not notable minor crime published using wikipedia. Youreallycan (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Lee Jasper

It has been suggested that Lee Jasper himself has written a large part of his article as part of a wider campaign of self-promotion. Certainly User:Teflontanks appears to have edited just this article, and seems rather pro-Jasper. Time for a major rewrite/review? 82.31.15.11 (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That user hasn't even edited this wikipedia in the last three years. Plenty of time and many others have edited it since then. Please feel free to, and you are encouraged to , WP:BEBOLD and edit to improve the article. Youreallycan (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

BLP problem imbedded in another article

I removed the following sentences from the article:

A prime suspect in both cases is serial killer Robert Black,([15]) who has admitted he targeted young girls on cycles. He had moved to London, from Scotland, in late 1968 or early 1969.

The cited source from May 1994 says:

A Robert Black, Britain's worst child killer, last night began a 35-year sentence for murder, senior detectives were hoping to interview him about a lengthy series of other sex murders. Police hope Black may be persuaded to confess to murders they suspect he has committed since the late 1960s.

and then further down, the article lists Fabb as one of thosse possible sex murders.

To me, this is way too attenuated to include in the article. The article doesn't say that the police actually interviewed him, or if they did, what the results of the interview were. It's just a hope for an interview of a suspect. Also, don't forget that the Independent article is now 17 and a half years old (no follow-up on the Black issue), and there's no evidence Fabb was even murdered. In my view it's a BLP issue for Robert Black and should be removed. It's also in the Black article, although I haven't touched that yet. Another editor is fighting to keep the Black material in.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I have personally studied this case since 1969. Robert Black has never admitted to any of the murders he has been found guilty of - the latest being Jennifer Cardy in Northern Ireland only this month. The only statement Black has ever made is that he targeted young girls on bicycles wearing white socks, which applies to April Fabb and Genette Tate. Agreed there is no evidence that either were murdered - but where are they then? They were only young teenage girls. Incidently, the Tate entry has not been altered. Why? There are numerous police statements and newspaper articles following the Cardy case this month which refer to Black being a prime suspect in this case and the Tate case, perhaps these should be included? That is all I am saying: he is a Prime Suspect and that is fact; therefore this entry should remain in the article. In any case the revision to the Fabb entry has taken a long time to surface. Frankly the revsion smacks of arrogance. With regards, David J Johnson (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Whether Black is a "prime suspect" is immaterial (the Independent article doesn't use that phrase anyway) as it's clear from the source that all it says is they "hope" to interview him about Fabb. All we deal with here are reliable sources in support of material that is policy-compliant, not what you think is a "fact". Where Fabb is now is irrelevant to this issue. If we knew that, we might not be having this discussion. So, too, is the fact that she was a young teenager when she disappeared. Finally, it doesn't matter what other articles say or how long this has taken "to surface". It is what it is now, and it must be dealt with properly. The probability is the material doesn't belong in the other articles, either, but, again, I'd have to look at each one to have an opinion. And skip the arrogance bit - It's unconstructive, and I don't even understand how you get there.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It does appear that you roam Wikipedia editing anything that you personally disagree with. The fact remains that Black is considered a "Prime Suspect" in both the April Fabb and Gennette Tate cases - a fact in the public domain for years and recently confirmed in the press after the Jennifer Cardy verdict. Black has never admitted to any of the murders or disappearances and is unlikely to do so.

I have to say that your attitude does Wikipedia no good. You keep mentioning "we" as though you are a complete authority. The deletion you keep trying to attempt is your opinion, as there are plenty of references that could be included - but that would make the entry reference heavy. For almost two years other editors have accepted the wording and improved upon it - why not you? What is "unconstructive" is editing out someone who is seen as suspect. Frankly threats about being blocked do not worry me and shows your arrogance.

The April Fabb entry was composed in good faith and edited by others in the same spirit. Certainly not by persons who roam to find anything to change. I hope it will remain a accurate summary of her disappearance for her still grieving family, For them and in the interests of accuracy the reference to Black should be reinstated. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 11:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss what should be in the April Fabb page regarding suspects and hopefully come to an agreement. However, the constant deletion of part of the article is not constructive. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "reinstated". I stopped removing your version, so other than your removal of the word "prime", the original version is, unfortunately, still in the article. "Reference heavy"? There's currently only one reference. I'm assuming it's the best you and all of your collaborators can do. Doesn't matter anyway as the reliability of the source isn't at issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

David, have you read our notability guidelines on people, more specifically the part about when can a criminal be called a criminal? If you do read them, please confirm whether those guidelines would apply here or not. Wifione ^Message 17:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:CRIME is probably the guideline Wifione is referring to: "A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator (or including material suggesting that any named person has committed a crime in any article), when no conviction is yet secured." (emphasis added by me).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The emphasized guideline was added by me, to respond to situations like these that could arise and would be arising across BLPs. It's important that we give serious consideration in such situations to not including such material. Yes, if judicial authorities (and not policing authorities) have confirmed a person is a criminal or have passed certain strictures/arrest warrants against individuals - and if we have reliable sources confirming the same - I believe only then is it alright to mention such details in a biography. Pure news material on accusations, crime reports, police statements, should be strongly avoided. The new face of Wikipedia, as we see it evolving, is extremely protective about BLPs. Wifione ^Message 18:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

If David doesn't respond to Wifione's comments, I will remove the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wifione, Regarding Robert Black, all I have stated - amongst others is that he is a "suspect" in this case and also Gennette Tate, not a convicted criminal. Defining evidence is not there in either case and incidently was not in the Cardy case - but he was still found guilty! He has never admitted to any of the cases he has been convicted of and I doubt, having followed the saga since 1969, that he ever will. I am not accusing Black, just mentioning that he is suspected in the same way that suspects are mentioned in D B Cooper, Zodiac or Jack the Ripper etc. There have been plenty of press reports since the end of the Cardy case which mention Black as a suspect in both the Fabb and Tate cases. I just felt that in a short article we did not need to quote the latest batch. Also he is mentioned as I suspect in Maurice Morson's book, which is referenced in both articles. Anyway, I am now off for a break and trust you will understand what I am trying to keep in the article(s). Thank you for your courtesy. Wih best regards, David J Johnson (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

David, although you have "responded", you haven't really addressed WP:CRIME or justified inclusion of the material in any of the articles. I am going to therefore remove the material from this article (later, I can deal with the other articles). Because this involves a BLP, you should not reinstate the material without a clear consensus for doing so, which, at the moment, you don't have.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Equally, you have not answered any of the points I have made and why not take-out all the other suspects material, such as G Tate, D B Cooper etc. Does this mean that you are going to trawl through all the other suspects in crime cases and then delete them? Sorry I have a life, rather than changing other folks contributions in quantity day after day. Perhaps mention should be made of a suspect, without naming him/her, in both the Fabb and Tate cases? David J Johnson (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The key phrase in WP:CRIME referred to above has been deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

.....And still no reasons given for selective editing and answers to my points. I just wish this could be settled in a friendly manner and not in a superior manner from what appears to be someone who spends all their time deleting numerous contributions, every day, that they consider to be wrong. It is wrong to delete some "suspect" material and ignore the same in other articles. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I see no selective editing. I can understand your frustration given your obvious interest in this case, but you don't seem to be addressing the Wikipedia policy reasons that have been discussed above. The fact that bad articles exist is never considered a reason not to act on an article, and if you know of other potential BLP violations you are welcome, indeed encouraged, to bring them here. I agree with the statement that " if judicial authorities (and not policing authorities) have confirmed a person is a criminal or have passed certain strictures/arrest warrants against individuals - and if we have reliable sources confirming the same - I believe only then is it alright to mention such details in a biography. Pure news material on accusations, crime reports, police statements, should be strongly avoided." Please don'treinstate the material. Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dougweller, Basically I agree with Wikipedia policy. I just wish I had more time to address other problems. My point is that one person is deleting Black from the April Fabb page, whilst ignoring same on other entries: Gennette Tate page and Robert Black page. My other point was that living people considered suspects are also mentioned on many other pages and have been left-in. The policy must be consistant throughout. I am quite happy to leave the April Fabb page as it is currently presented - what I am not happy about is the way a certain "editor" has handled the discussion, whilst seemingly making no positive contributions - apart from constant deletions. Anyway, I thank you for your communication and look forward to working with you in the future. With best regards, David. David J Johnson (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, I will remove similar information from other articles. Your barbs against me are unfounded, repetitive, and annoying.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the material from the Tate (also removed similar material about Peter Tobin) and Black articles. Let me know if there's any other articles that need attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This is another example of Bbb23 going on a dubious self-appointed crusade to "protect" living persons from coverage in reliable sources. It is WP:WELLKNOWN that Robert Black has been considered as a suspect in the disappearance of Genette Tate. There seems to be a wrecking spree here based on a poor understanding of WP:WELLKNOWN. See also BBC coverage here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Ian, nice to see you again, too. See, David, how can I make the articles consistent when my attempts are reverted? Ain't life grand?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The BBC, Guardian, Independent etc are reliable sources. Please don't make BLP problems where none exist.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before, Ian. My view - and the view of other editors - is that generally there should not be material about BLPs that only talk about them being investigated or being suspects. Your view - and the view of a different set of editors - is that reliable sources and WP:WELLKNOWN trump the BLP concerns. There's no need to take potshots at me, though. If you continue to do that, I'll stop responding to the substance of your comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no serious problem with reporting the fact that police consider Robert Black as a suspect in Tate's disappearance in 1978. He has been interviewed about this on a number of occasions, and this has been covered in the reliable sources. The "OMG, let's airbrush out all of this on BLP grounds" response makes no sense.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ian has now reinserted the material in the Black and Tate articles. Unless other editors take a position on this issue and these articles, I'm done as it seems like whoever reverts most recently prevails. I must say that this problem stems in large part from a lack of clarity in BLP policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23, You state "Let me know if there's any other articles that need attention", why on earth would I let you know. I disagree strongly with your stance and your attitude and any pages that might need attention I can do myself. Here on Wikipedia, the majority of editors respect others views. You seem to think that your personal view and interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines is always correct - hence the excessive daily quantity of your reversions. Perhaps you should get out more. David J Johnson (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

David, David, that was my sarcastic retort to your complaining about inconsistencies in the articles. Of course, my view is always correct. See WP:Bbb23.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yasmin Qureshi

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

I've just removed a couple of section from this rather short biography of a British MP. One of them was a completely gratuitous section on driving offences. The other seemed to be designed to make a connection between Qureshi, the first female Muslim MP, and the controversial leader of the Islamic Movement in Israel. While I do not wish to make any accusations, I note that the editor primarily responsible for those additions, User:Shakehandsman, is currently hard at work on Murder of Ross Parker, an article about a boy "stabbed to death and beaten with a hammer by a gang of Muslim Asian youths of Pakistani origin". I have outlined my reasons for removing the sections on the talk page, but I thought I would mention it here in case anyone wanted to look over either of those two articles (although the latter would likely be better suited to the NPOV noticeboard). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems clean now - I added quotation marks for "all-black shortlists" as it appears to have a specific meaning in British politics and is not obvious to everyone else. Collect (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If people actually examine the article history they'd see that the Raed Salah content was introduced by User:Twobells,[16] and not myself. I simply restored it after a deletion by a SPA and added some balance to it by telling Qureshi's side of the story. I suppose I should have improved the heading but just because content is missing for other articles isn't' grounds for deletion. Talking of other politicians' articles, multiple driving offences resulting in a ban always merit a mention for everyone else so why not here? For example Chris Huhne's driving offences have a section and they're much less serious that Qureshi's (resulting in only a 3 month ban). Similalrly, Ed Balls has one single offence to his name and not even a ban but that gets a mention also. Perhaps the Qureshi content could be made a little more concise but other than that it's entirely consistent with every other article. As for my editing elsewhere, I have edited the bios of hundreds of MPs on Wikipedia of with Qureshi just happens to be one. Bringing up entirely unrelated articles in this discussion has absolutely no relevance here whatsoever and evening mentioning such points really isn't on at all and not at all appreciated. Comment on content and not contributors in future please--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The driving offence seems to have already been renmoved from Ed Balls' article. The one in Chris Huhne should likely be removed as well (as should statements like "In a May 2011 YouGov opinion poll, almost half the respondents thought that Huhne should resign over the allegations"). In that particular case, it may be involved in the larger issue of penalty points and should be merged into that sub-section, but I haven't looked into it. These really aren't the type of thing that belongs in a BLP unless they have a notable impact on the person, their career, or their life. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask why, if you "do not wish to make any accusations", you even brought up an experienced user's editing of an entirely unrelated article?--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have found that it is often instructive to determine if certain types of edits are part of a larger pattern. That article seemed like it may have issues of its own, so I drew people's attention to it. I have started a thread about another of your articles below, incidentally, for similar reasons. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I strongly suggest you keep to the topic at hand in future. Funnily enough the Parker achieved Good article status the very same day you mentioned it, so if there's any pattern there then it's a pattern of editing to a high standard.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood what I wrote above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

- Shakehandsman and twobells have a degree of edit association on articles of women typically labour and typically feminist - Shakehandsman has a declared position in opposition to feminists - both of them were involved in strongly attempting to add pedophile allegations to H Harman and also reverted the others desired additions back into the article in that case - They have combined edits to - Harriet Harman - Nazir Ahmed, Baron Ahmed - Patricia Scotland, Baroness Scotland of Asthal - Jacqui Smith - Yasmin Qureshi - Youreallycan (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I refuse to engage with any of Off2riorob's/Youreallycan's comments about me due to previous incidents, the diffs for which can be found on my talk page.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yea great - the "previous incidents" relate to my and others objections to the User:Shakehandsman's previous additions to BLP articles that he has a stated opposition to and reports at OTRS objecting to his additions to BLP articles. If you refuse to edit or are blocked from editing the en wikipedia BLP project I will be even more satisfied. Youreallycan (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Shakehandsman. It only deals with Shakehandsman's recent edits and articles created by them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I have raised some specific issues on the talk page of Murder of Ross Parker. I would appreciate outside opinions in those discussions from those familiar with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Bruno Zuppiger

Bruno Zuppiger never graduated from the University of St.Gallen, neither of any other! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldpossum 1 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A lot of uncited personal claims there - probably could use a bit of citations finding or stubbing back. I added a couple of ref improve templates. Youreallycan (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of references included in the German language Wikipedia if anyone is able to translate...--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ellen Corbett

Ellen Corbett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Corbett is an active US politician, and a couple of single-purpose accounts came in and added some well-cited criticisms of her. It's all the sort of information Wikipedia should have, but the article was only a stub before they came along. So the only main-body content of the article is critical, making the article little more than a well-sourced hit piece. -LtNOWIS (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you - two SPA and that purpose was clearly a partisan one . I removed one of the sections it was only cited ot two primary external pdf downloads and the end result was that nothing happened. I npov- ed the other section title and added a npov template to it - I will get back to it later but it seems undue imo - a few absenteeisms over a sixteen year career - all written from a position of more damage. - but I don't have time ot look for some balance or to further investigate the articles supporting the section. Youreallycan (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Norman Scarth - legal threats and outing

Norman Scarth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article has been the subject of legal threats and outing by 2 editors outing each other. The legal threats were via OTRS "give me your address so I can send the police around to arrest you" and a request for an address where legal documents could be served demanding damages. These are trivial and I can't connect an editor to them. There was also a request that the edits by 2 editors all be reverted, which would have had vitually no effect except to leave the article with a few words in it that the correspondent had objected to and that I didn't think belonged anyway. There is a web campaign about this person and I wouldn't be surprised if there was more activity on it, so eyes would be useful. I'll be warning a couple of editors about outing. Maybe there is still material in it that doesn't belong, maybe an AfD would be appropriate but I'm not at all sure about that which is why I haven't brought one. Dougweller (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I cleaned up the Legal matters section a bit, and I'll watch the article for a while. It's one of those articles that in my view should not be on Wikipedia, but, at the same time, I think it would, unfortunately, be kept in an AfD. Essentially, he's at best a crackpot political candidate and, at worst, a mentally ill political candidate. And his conduct, whatever the cause, gets him in trouble (sometimes serious) for which he gets press attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I expanded it when I came across the blue link in the Haltemprice and Howden byelection article. I do think he's a notable figure due to the level of coverage of him over some period of time for different activities, but due to his popularity among conspiracy circles the kind of editing dispute seen just now is bound to repeat. I think Wikipedia has to be willing to have biographies on people like Scarth and that AfD is a blunt tool for such issues (I did consider his notability before expanding the article) - article protection is a much better tool. Fences&Windows 00:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there are more editors who would agree with you on this issue than would with me. That, plus I don't feel strongly about it, made an AfD nomination unappealing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Kris Herzog

Lacks reliable sources, COI, reads like an advert.... Regards, Ariconte (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that's an amazing article. Reads like a gossipy ad.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I may get beaten up but such an article has no business here, even if some editors find he meets the minimal threshold of notability:--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Black_(singer)

The article has an NPOV tag, but nothing in the Talk page arguing why someone feels the article is non-neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.177.3.15 (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It was apparently added because of a paragraph explaining how to buy some of the music. That paragraph was removed, so I removed the tag. It was also the wrong POV tag, actually, but no matter.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Iqbal Sacranie

We have removed references to Union of Good as Sir Iqbal Sacranie has never been a trustee or member of Union of Good. Apologies have been received from number of blogs who had inserted this false and libelous information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raheenamemi (talk • contribs) 12:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I've edited the contents and nominated for deletion because the only sourced content would essentially constitute an attack BLP. The rest of the contents before I edited were non-notable activities that were wholly unsupported. There was nothing I could glean in searching as to the basic things you'd expect to see in an encyclopedic biography. IMHO, any and all encyclopedic information is adequately addressed in other articles, namely Muslim Council of Britain and Festival of Muslim Cultures. JFHJr (㊟) 02:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Grace Fu and User:La goutte de pluie

Hi, I would like to draw your attention towards the article on Grace Fu (history), who is a Singaporean politician. A few hours ago, I had removed a section from the subject's page because it was poorly sourced – [17]. User:La goutte de pluie reinserted a similar section titled "Stance on ministerial paycuts" while citing Channel News Asia and AsiaOne, which I replaced because it put an undue emphasis on a less prominent event. La goutte reverted my edits and added another source from Today (Singapore newspaper), in a manner which is nothing less than sensationalist. I have left a note on the user's talk page, but it appears that they do not agree. I would like to seek intervention from an uninvolved administrator. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 19:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

- As User:La goutte de pluie's desired addition is disputed and reported here, I have removed it for the time being - left him a link to this discussion and a note to please don't replace without consensus discussion. Youreallycan (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

- Sorry, what policies have I violated? This is not "undue". Simply google-news Grace Fu. Off2riorob, this is a case of common sense. My addition is backed up by THREE reliable sources, all from government news websites that are very sympathetic to Grace Fu's party. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No one is accusing you of violating any policies, it's a content dispute in a BLP and while discussion ensues we err on the side of caution and leave the content out, it was a recent addition and not long term stable content. Hopefully Sir Nich will join in - is part of your addition a facebook page quote? Youreallycan (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a quote from the page of the subject which the media then commented upon. This is part of a current event over paycuts to ministerial salaries, not "tabloid gossip". Can you tell me what sort of caution you are erring upon, when THREE RELIABLE SOURCES are used? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Also (correct me if I am wrong) you seem to be removing this - "In January 2012, Fu drew criticism for her statement on proposed pay cuts for political leaders." - ttp://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20120106-320189.html - why is that? - Bear with me while I investigate a bit this desired addition of yours - Youreallycan (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you are not removing that, you are expanding on the criticism? Youreallycan (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticism for what? Nick appears to be doing "damage control". Even Bloomberg picked up on her remarks. She is a public figure participating in the debate over paycuts to her own salary, and has been widely quoted, because she has become a symbolic figure of ministerial excess. I don't think this is "sensationalist" -- it's necessary public commentary that when widely-sourced is hardly in violation of WP:BLP. Furthermore, I tried to represent her views fairly. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the large quote sat like that in the article was excessive weight to a facebook comment. This addition you made also seems a bit undue - "This statement drew much criticism from Singaporeans, who accused her of being more concerned about her pay, rather than public service. She has "become a lightning rod for online unhappiness" [2] after her post attracted a "furore". [3] According to Today, irate netizens "termed her 'elitist', while others accused her of focusing on pay instead of public service". Grace Fu later issued a "clarification" stating that she "could have been misunderstood" and "accepted and respected the recommendations". She maintained however that further paycuts might "[dissuade] good people from coming forward in future". [4]

- Dude - this is not the place for political activism - you are totally unable to edit from a NPOV position regarding this topic. I would like to see you banned from Singaporean political BLP articles , you have been at this for a year now, please give it up. Youreallycan (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not an activist. I'm not even in Singapore. I'm a college student from the University of Virginia. All of those quotes were from reliable sources. How is it undue? Have you looked at my three sources? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't care who you are or where you are - You have been editing this sector of BLP articles from an undue POV position for over a year. You have lost your admin status. I support your being completely restricted from this sector. Youreallycan (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  - I redacted a clearly false accusation from your comment. The blocks were for something else entirely and for Todd's own administrative misconduct I have yet to raise. Your egregrious harassment of other users has not been sparkling either. I noted that you harassed me in both the AFDs for Tin Pei Ling and Nicole Seah despite the fact that both AFDs had overwhelming speedy keeps. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
    - Please don't remove comments I make. If you dispute them then do that, on my talkpage or here. So, none of your blocks or your admin deysop was to do with any BLP articles in the singaporean blp sector? You were editing through protection on a blp from this sector? Youreallycan (talk)
      - I voluntarily resigned. And I have never been blocked for editing of Singaporean articles. You will be reported at WP:ANI. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

La goutte, can you please calm down? I am concerned that your recent edits are in contravention of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE.
I do not dispute the fact that the references are reliable sources, however La goutte is giving undue weight to this event by by creating an entire section on it, and later cherry-picking phrases from the news sources. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and articles, specially on living individuals, should be written with a conservative and dispassionate tone. The sources do not mention that the subject drew criticism from Singaporeans, but "netizens"; the addition of "who accused her of being more concerned about her pay, rather than public service" is original research; 'Grace Fu later issued a "clarification" [...]'; the style of your editing is very disturbing.
Also, I do not appreciate being stalked. It is construed as harassment – [18], [19]. Please assume good faith. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 21:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not "cherry-picking phrases" -- that would imply I am selectively leaving other statements out. Can you suggest statements from the sources that I should include? Certainly being in the international media is very notable.

The phrase "accused her of being more concerned about her pay, rather than public service" is not OR -- it comes straight from the source. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You're missing the point. That section gives far too much weight to that small aspect of this person's life. That should be one sentence at most. I think it's time to revive the Proposed topic ban for Singaporean politics for this editor. It's clear that this broader topic is a minefield for this editor and she seems unable to keep her pogo stick out of it. Toddst1 (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

How is it "too much weight"? She is participating in national discussions over her own salary. A salary is hardly a small aaspect of a person's life. (You note that the US Constitution was amended so lawmakers would not be able to legislate their ssalaries for the current term.) If you asked a random Singaporean who Grace Fu was one week ago, probably very few people would have known who she was. I note that the rest of the article is weakly-sourced or based on self-published sources. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can't identify this as "too much weight", then you need to take a look at policy again. Please stop your vile campaign of defamation. Wikipedia is not your playground. I also note that you have been following and stalking my contributions as a response to my criticism of your work. If you do not stop this, I will take the issue to the administrator's noticeboard and appeal for a topic ban. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you making legal threats? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 16:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

LGDP, that's a very short peg on which to hang your hat, and I caution that you that attempting to overstretch WP:NLT to gain an edge in a dispute is the sort of thing that will get very short shrift from administrators. It's quite apparent that there's no legal threat there; the actual threat against you – to request a topic ban (and I make no comment either way on the merits of the case) – is very clearly and explicitly spelled out. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Then he shouldn't use the word "defamatory" lightly. For one, "defamatory" means "patently false" and "unsubstantiated" — and I have certainly made no such comments, when I have consistently used high-quality sources. I did not cherrypick. I used all the sources I found in Google News. People are free to add more. I have to be concerned about Mr Nick's POV as well. He seems to have an excessive interest in PAP politicians but not Opposition politicians.

Also please take a look at my latest edit. I have tried my best to be neutral. For one, I have added an HTML comment forbidding all criticism from being added to her page. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point of my message. I reiterate that I did not, and do not, comment on the relative merits of your respective positions. WP:NLT is a policy that is taken very seriously, and its application has potent consequences. You should not – and you should know better than to – invoke it lightly. It's obvious in context that Nick was not threatening to take legal action against you; bringing up WP:NLT was gamesmanship on your part, not the result of any genuine perception that he might consider filing suit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to note that salaries comprise a key part of a person's career. I think weight should be given to her salary. We give a lot of weight to Warren Buffet's salary. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Youreallycan and Toddst1. LGDP is simply repeating her POV pushing that she used against other Singapore politicians like President Tony Tan Keng Yam, Tin Pei Ling, Vivian Balakrishnan and Teo Ser Luck. She should be banned from editing BLPs in Singapore. Support Proposed topic ban for Singaporean politics Searchertoo (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Except that I note that from your contribution history, you look like a sockpuppet stalking my edits. Your first edit was on an AFD I started. Can you please disclose your previous username? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I am entitled to my identity just as much as you hide your real identity and real motivation for so aggressively pursuing your POV that even Jimbo Wales expressed disgust with your behaviour. In fact this childish behavior repeats itself all over your Wiki edits. Just ask any neutral admin to look at your contribution history. Cool down and grow up Searchertoo (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not aggressively pursuing any POV. My only stance in fact, is people using the wiki to promote themselves, as with Grace Fu (it was full of resumespam), Simon Chesterman and the like. And if you are masquerading your previous user history, I am not sure if you can contribute to consensus. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ignore me if you like. But stick to the facts. And your contribution history damns you. Let's wait for Jimbo and neutral admins to review your antics.Searchertoo (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Searchertoo. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Made a compromise edit

It has no mention of any criticism whatsoever. I've also removed a bunch of weakly-sourced resumespam. The ministerial paycuts is very notable -- it has over 500+ articles on Google News. I believe "lightning rod for unhappiness" is a fairly neutral comment from a reputable newsource over what actually occurred. Before passing judgment, could people please read the sources involved? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 21:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a compromise edit. The WSJ article does not make a direct reference to Grace Fu. Please stop your POVpushing campaign. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Bloomberg does. I will include references to that if needed. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 16:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Mike Martin (Politician)

Wikipedia has had an article on me for a number of years. The attributed facts in it are all referenced to old news articles. And most of the information reporters wrote were based on “reliable sources”, “unnamed sources”, or “investigators say”. Few real persons contributing information about me are ever named in news articles, yet Wikipedia appears to look at it as qualifying fact.

Since I cannot convince Wikipedia to remove the article, I have attempted many times to correct the article with the facts. Heck, they even have my place of birth and year wrong. Each time I try, some cracker-jack self proclaimed editor comes along within minutes and returns the false information. The real truth can even be found in a published article in Reader’s Digest several years ago, but your editors will not allow any reference or link to that site. Even my own website, where I explain the details, is forbidden.

So, why is it OK to reference news articles that will not name their sources, but not the actual account by the person the article is about? Pretty unfair, Wiki!

I am asking nicely that the management at Wikipedia (not the self proclaimed editors) either allow my link to be included or remove the entire article altogether.

Michael Wayne Martin Austin, Texas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Martin_(politician)

and

http://www.michaelmartinusa.com/5173.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.132.15.64 (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Self-published sources. Reputable, independent journalists carry more credibility than a self-published source. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 20:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, under certain conditions; repeated as Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if

1. it is not unduly self-serving;

2. it does not involve claims about third parties;

3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I can understand why you might be unhappy with the article as it's not very complimentary. I've cleaned it up a bit, including removing the birth year. Unfortunately, it has almost no sources, and one of the sources no longer works, so I've tagged the article. If sources aren't forthcoming, the unsourced material may be removed (at a later date). I've also added your website to the infobox.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have now included a link to the subject's account of the incident, which I think is fair (it's an interesting read, btw). I added some brief notes further explaining the court case, and another about his time in NZ/custody dispute. At the moment I think all the content is verifiable and possibly neutral according to our definition - i.e. giving coverage in accordance with the weight in reliable sources. A problem may be that the coverage of this politician is, afaics, wholly negative in tone or else certainly not complimentary, and I can understand why the subject would not want this article to exist in any form that bases itself on coverage in "independent reliable sources". Our deletion policy does say that "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete." I don't know if Mike Martin counts as a "non-public figure" as he has been an elected politician and has run again in 2007 for office. I also don't know if this counts as a biography of someone known only for one event, but it might - the bulk of his notability stems from the shooting and subsequent court case, only the Texas Monthly article where called him one of the worst legislators really covers his political career in any depth. The coverage of his custody dispute and 2007 attempt at election are only in local newspapers, otherwise he is a footnote in history known as "that Texas representative who arranged to get himself shot". So an AfD might be appropriate here. Fences&Windows 15:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Also see the unsourced paragraph Ronnie Earle#Indictment of State Rep. Mike Martin. Fences&Windows 15:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

A minor quibble. I've never seen anyone put "-1984, divorced" in the infobox spouse field. I understand that the only sourced information in the article is that Martin divorced in 1984, but in the absence of a spouse's name, I would leave that field in the infobox blank.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Latif Yahia

- Latif Yahia pseudo-biography.

I'll try to keep it consise. I'm Having increasing problems with keeping pertinent information on this page.

The breakdown is thus: person making fantastical claim to have been forced to be a political decoy of a personnage who is recently (past 10 years) deceased. Basically, my guy claims Uday Hussein forcibly made him into a "double".

The background: Subject comes to the West (Europe), writes a few books, then eventually (2nd gulf war) the story begins to catch hold. Media love his story but don't care to corroborate it, nor really care about accuracy- it sells. Eventually movie deal comes up and motion picture is created loosely based on the stories by my subject.

The problem begins: There is NO corroboration of any of the claims, all claims are referenced back to himself and his claims, via interviews he has given. This subject is a large self-promoter who seems to be interested in furthering his own fame, selling copies of his book, etc.. Got a wikipedia bio page opened on himself, and proceeded to fill this page with these claims, perpetrated as Factual.

Oppo: I came across this, and the information struck me as odd. Looking into the information, I came across opposition research articles published in the UK by journalist Eowin Butler and by journalist Ed Caesar. They actually took it upon themselves to investigate these claims, and discovered

Friends and people close to Uday Hussein denying he ever had a double.
Former personal estate guards deny there ever being a double for Uday.
CIA boss in the region denying ever hearing of the guy, and asserting Uday Hussein did not use doubles.
Hussein's former personal surgeon, and Doctor of hospital alleged to have conducted Yahia's surgery says he never heard of this guy.
Two former friends of Mr. Hussein note an arrest of Yahia for impersonation of Hussein in 1990, and cite a 1990 letter addressed to Mr. Hussein documenting this arrest.
Irish Ex-wife of this man claiming he used an assumed name and persona to woo-her.

All on the record. Published articles. People with names. One of the authors has also interviewed Mr. Yehia himself, and documents contradictions and holes in his stories. Rather than delete bio, all these things I documented and added to the wiki bio page. (you can find these articles in my revision -see page history - most notably Ed Caesar's article: The Double Dealer(Caesar, Ed (23 January 2011), "The Double Dealer", The Sunday Times, UK)

Problem Increases: So I came about articles and research published by these journalists and took it upon myself to adjust the WikiBio page to reflect the opposition claims, and lo and behold- this page seems to have a troll waiting to erase all oppo information, and place promotional links to this movie or Yahia's books, and (of late) ad-hominem attacks against the journalists who broke these stories about this almost certain Fraud.

I try to edit and revert the page back to reflect Cited, Substantiated Evidence contradicting his claims, and the page gets scrubbed again, and again. With never a note explaining the reason. I look to the page history, and see there are over 500 revisions in the past 2 years, of random IP-accounts rescrubbing this page of these things, some of the very articles I attempted to include.

This is currently being committed by IP accounts and two other accounts(TVNEWS11 and AMA2010). It is my conviction that these are all the same person, and these accounts have been created to keep scrubbing this page of factual material, and project wild claims as truths -all with no credible verification, mind you.

IMO It is completely wrong for wiki to promote misinformation as fact, and to think that it's being done manipulatively, for promotional gain makes my blood boil. And it is making a mockery of Wikipedia.

So my problem, boiled down:

Living Persons biography, of a person who is only notable for one alleged event, who has no substantiation for this event-other than claims and stories by this person himself.
Unsubstantiated claims-making integral to page itself, and self-referential citations.
Ad-hominem argument on the page itself against published journalists.
Links placed every so often to Subject's personal blog with petty messages in the wiki page to oppo journalists (eg: "for Eowin Butler and Ed Caesar")
Erasure of properly sourced, cited material, which had added to discourse.
Addition of promotional material and sales links, which do not add to discourse.
Refusal to use the discussion page prior to making changes and edits

It is obvious that Yahia himself is editing this page to mirror to his story, which he is trying to use to pursue fame and interviews and whatever else. While spreading misinformation about a (deceased) public figure, Uday Hussein.

-Please see the talk page of admin. C.Fred, to whom I originally complain. -Please note the discussion page of Latif Yahia bio, which has no comments by any of the 'scrubbers'. -Please note the View History of the Latif Yahia page and the changes which have been made and remade and reremade. -Please note my version in the history of the page, and see the opposition research, and the links to contradict the original claims made.

I reccommend:

Add protections to the page (over 500 revisions in 2 years!?),
Reveiew page history (especially the content I added) and revert page back to include my links and citations,
Remove claims which are unsubstantiated, and reword page to reflect the unverified status of fantastical/dubious claims.

Otherwise I recommend Deletion of this Biography, due to wanton unverified claimsmaking, and because this person is not very notable. Subject is only on the very edge of warranting a wiki:bio page in the first place. Perhaps a stub would be enough, or a caveat at the end of the "The Devil's Double" movie page. Note: May need to be Salted, as I would guess Yahia will keep attempting to reopen a deleted page on himself, to restart the self-promotion. One reason to keep it up though, to warn/inform the public of the nature of this overwhelmingly likely perpetrated hoax/fraud.

thanks for your time. apologies for the length. Trickietrickie (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is an embarrassment on many levels. Some examples:

This sentence in the lead: "Other than stories from Yehia himself, and media articles referencing these stories themselves, there is no support of the claims of the alleged life events of Mr. Yehia."
Mostly unsourced Life section.
Allegations of fabrications section, which reads like poorly written commentary.
Incredibly long Further reading and External links sections.

I'm tempted to significantly pare back the article, but it would be a bit of work.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Cristiane Santos and Gina Carano

Both articles are being attacked with BLP violations, but my requests for protection were denied. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 06:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The Santos article is semi-protected. I backed out one piece of information that wasn't properly sourced from the article. The Carano article, which is not protected, was better sourced, but I still backed out an unsourced asterisked comment from a table. The interplay between the two articles is partly a result of them using different sources. I'm not sure enough of my ground to weigh the credibility/reliability of the different sources, so I stuck to the sources in each article as having to support the material in that article. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the sport could have a go.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Gérard Jones

There appears to be continuous editing which is defamatory and offensive towards the biography of the living person (Gerard Jones entrepreneur).

This can be found on the page history of the article.

Yesterday an unnamed user rightly deleted a contribution which implied that Mr Gerard Jones was giving himself odds to become England Manager which was left with a gesture of laughing.

There is also a comment on his name which say 'pinocchio' after his name which is obviously trying to insult the living person, which, if there are aware of must be upsetting.

I strongly feel that some sort of protection must be put if possible on the page to stop edits of this kind which are offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.98.8.187 (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, an article which consists almost entirely of hyperbole about a person of questionable notability (by Wikipedia standards) may attract the attention of vandals etc. As for article protection, it is not our policy to protect articles without a more compelling reason than the activities of a single vandal: contrary to your assertions, the editing history shows no evidence whatsoever of "continuous editing which is defamatory and offensive". Instead, it seems that the article is almost entirely written by a single contributor (MickFinn2011) whose only other contribution to Wikipedia seems to be an article on The Football Conference Youth Alliance - which itself does little to establish the notability of that subject either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Depuffed a bit - and noted that a search result != proper source for DoB. Also removed some clearly excess pics for a not-very-notable person. Collect (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad Mahmood Alam

I recently removed some unreliable sources from this article.[20][21] I then removed uncited content[22] which has been reverted back in[23] Should this content be removed? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I've given a look at general sourcing and content. So far, there's one source used to support a comment on the subject's literacy (the cite supports other things, too). I haven't verified the claim, but assuming it actually appears in the source, I'm not sure how reliable it is. Before possibly taking this question to WP:RSN, I'd like to see what other editors here think about this. My instinct is that if this ace's literacy were at issue, it would be reported on in more sources anyway. Anyone else think it might be worth removal on policy grounds? JFHJr (㊟) 22:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how reliable the Guttman article is, but, poking around, I found a website ([24]) (which I can't vouch for) that has excerpts from the same article, one of which states: "In 1969, Alam attended the staff college, but he was removed from the course in 1970 under the absurd pretext that he could not read and write." In other words, assuming Alam was removed, it wasn't because he was in fact illiterate but because the PAF didn't like him for other reasons. In fact, it may be that the assertion in our article was simply poorly written (a bit of irony).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. That cite is also currently in use within the article, and I'm not inclined to make a big deal about the underlying text. I've changed the prose in question to remove the exact pretext, since it was false anyway, and might give undue weight simply by being too specific. A falsehood is a falsehood, and it doesn't seem to be a major, widely reported issue for this BLP. JFHJr (㊟) 23:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Erich von Däniken

This material in the article is libellous and not just opinion. Accusing someone of racism is an extreme comment. It is one thing to disagree with the subject's theories - to make a direct personal attack on him, based on nothing more than another person's opinion (there is no claim that von Daniken has ever made racist comments, just that someone has chosen to call his work 'racist' for some reaons that is not fathomable from the wikipedia article). It had previously been removed by editors as argumentative and I presume libellous:

"and John Flenley and Paul Bahn suggested that views such as his "constitute the ultimate in racism".[13]

Yet someone keeps restoring it. Your note at the top of the article says such material MUST be removed immediately. Yet, when someone does (and I tried today) it is automatically reinserted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.50.2 (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It says "unsourced or poorly sourced" material must be removed. This is well sourced and attributed to those who said it. There has been an attempt to remove that commen and at another removal " Even if such nonsense should really be mentioned in a "book" published by Oxford University Press, it would rather appear appropriate to protest against such a publication than to quote it on Wikipedia." which I think is a misunderstanding of policy. Other material about his problems with the law was also removed. Dougweller (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I would point out that the 'Legal troubles' and 'Criticism' sections of the article appear to be the only ones sourced -- it therefore seems rather odd (and partisan) to subject them to such hypercritical scrutiny. Has a substantiated claim been made that any specific source for this critical information is unreliable? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Calling von Däniken a racist is somewhat POV. What the authors were getting at is that he has insulted the intelligence of native Americans by implying from his European viewpoint that they would have been too stupid to build large or complex artefacts without the help of an advanced alien civilisation. This view is rejected by mainstream archaeologists, and the claim of racism oversimplifies this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not the passage should be included or not must be discussed on the article's talkpage; the only point to address here is that "I don't like it 'cause it's outrageous, therefore it must go" is not a valid point. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would suggest providing a bit more of the quote for context might be in order -- but the point about von Däniken being more than a little ethnocentric does not seem unfounded. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The precise quote, which is reflected in the article is, after a discussion of the views of von Daniken and others who support the ancient astronaut/lost supercivilisation theories, Such views ignore the real achievements of our ancestors and constitute the ultimate in racism: they belittle the abilities and ingenuity of the human species as a whole. It isn't just one racial group such as native Americans, as claimed above, it's the whole human race he implicitly belittles -- according to the opinion of one source. It seems clear to me that one cannot use this to support the simple description of von Daniken as a racist. Cusop Dingle (talk) 10:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The quote in the article was expanded to give it more of a context. Since "racist" is a controversial label word, it should be given in a way that explains why it was used.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that when the authors refer to von Daniken as an "ultimate rascist", they make it aboundantly clear that he is belittling the whole human race as incapable of making technological discoveries on it's own, rather than a particlular race in the common meaning of the word. The criticism is therefore valid and justified. The quote in the text of the article makes this clear, and canńot be interpreted as meaning that von Daniken is a "racist" in the common sense. I see nothing "libellous" in the quote, or in the criticism that he is Eurocentric. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Please be careful here. The authors refer to theories of the sort that von Daniken promotes as "the ultimate in racism", and in a way which makes it clear that they are not accusing him or any other person of discriminating between races. This is rather different to describing him as an "ultimate racist". Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Legal troubles": The Channel 4 cite is not available now, and the Times article seems to focus on Volterri from what I can tell. Collect (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

But a summary of it is: Chasing Von Daniken's chariots; Loving The Alien: The Real Erich Von Daniken Ch4, 9.00pm Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Alas - your cite does not support the claims made for the programme. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If you searched for sources you'd find them, eg this Duke University book [25] Dougweller (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The cite you give does not back the claims made. That is one of the unfortunate rules of Wikipedia, when a cite is used for claims it does not absolutely support, the claims are removed. Your cite says he was convicted of fraud and did not serve his full sentence. No details of the fraud in that book. None of the lurid detail about him owing vast sums of money, etc. WP:BLP does not say "embellish what the source says" as far as I can tell. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

So we simply edit the material to match the available sources -- nothing unusual about that. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 01:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Brad Lager WP:NPOV vios

I'd like to request a fresh set of eyes and opinion for an ongoing dispute to the Brad Lager Wiki. Over the last 24hrs someone using two different IP's (they've been traced to exact same map location) and now a registered probable sock puppet keeps introducing information of a controversial nature with no reliable supporting sources. The subject of wiki is currently a candidate for high political office in Missouri so I suspect some political dirty tricks at work. I've issued explanations and warnings to the offending party(ies) and they go unheeded. Would it be proper to ask for protected status for the wiki for a period of say 48 or 72 hours? Any assistance appreciated! Sector001 (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I've given the contents some working over. If unsourced content is replaced by the WP:SPA, I'd suggest taking it to WP:ANI or finding and asking an admin here for individual attention. JFHJr (㊟) 23:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

And I've removed some more stuff that was clearly unsupported by the sources cited. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks folks. I was losing my temper with the indivual(s) and rather than lose my perspective and violate 3RRR, etc. decided to bring in some other opinions. Sector001 (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Jodi Kantor

Jodi Kantor has included her Twitter handle in her bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.144.30 (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Theres really nothing wrong with that if it's her primary personal outlet and she is a writer/journo with over seven thousand followers. - the wheels are not dropping off. - there is currently no external link to it in the article, although I am tempted to add one. Youreallycan (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Chris Duckworth

Article on South African cricketer Chris Duckworth has been updated several times in past two years by IP addresses adding unencyclopedic and unsourced material that appears to run counter to WP:Auto and WP:COI and is inappropriate in both tone and content. Johnlp (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

One miserable article. I've removed the Personal life section completely as it is unsourced except with "commentary" (not refs) about sources. It was also dreadfully drafted, and if I had the books referred to, I strongly suspect was copied from them. It was also full of material that is irrelevant to the article. I've redrafted the rest as best I could considering there is only one inline source and one source in the infobox.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I can find other material with which to fill this out a bit more (with sources). But it was pretty difficult to know where to begin, the mess it had got into! Johnlp (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be much appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Filipe da Costa

This article contains intself a fair amount of misplaced and subjective opinions, way out from an impartial report. I´m fully aware of this player career ( I´m his father ). Here are a few examples: a-Written:The following year, he was loaned to U.S. Tolentino,[6] also failing to appear for the Serie C2/B outfit.

true. He never was even close to that club. That club asked Reggiana ( which was under bankruptcy eminency and failling to players remuneration )for. Yet the player didn't agree for and went for contract mutual termination.

Even the site link which report the team squad doesn't mention Filipe. -- Biased lie

b- Written:On August 2007, Costa signed a one-year contract with Leeds United.[12] He was limited to cameo appearances, and was sent off in a rare start, a game against Bury for the Football League Trophy, in which he received his marching orders after kicking an opponent; subsequently, he was never played again by manager Dennis Wise.[13]

imaginative mischievous conclusion from the author. true: Anyone may find on Ledds' site reports to confirm this- Filipe come to sufer a recurrent lesion. An injury that prevents him to be fit for long. He tried to come back for three times but the injury was still there.

Though... written: On January 2008, Costa joined Scottish club Falkirk for a trial, but returned to Elland Road after this proved unsuccessful.[14] Costa was then released in April 2008 again a malicious presumption. Filipe couldn´t workout much less perform a proper tril. He was there mainly for talks as Flkirk was really interested havimg his contribution. Tho, money talked different. If the author was careful and impartial could find Denis Wise words praising the player and the regretful lack of time to work with him.

c- written: For the 2008–09 season, Costa moved to Romania with FC Timişoara; the contract included a special clause that stated it could be terminated if the player suffered an injury. However, he was released on 4 August 2008, in spite of not suffering any physical setbacks.

impressive contradiction and escape from true. Again the site link from which this author tries to get evidence, says exactly the opposite. i.e Filipe was still having a recurrent injury. WHY is this person laying to much?? I wonder.!!

An all this intended inaccuracy goes on and on.

d- written:On January 2009, CSKA released the player, via arbitration commission of the Bulgarian Football Union.[19] It should have been written-On January 2009, CSKA HAD to released the player, via arbitration commission of the Bulgarian Football Union.[19] since it was due the player clain.

e- written: Club coach Emil Velev decided to sell the player due to his poor performances in the second round of 2008–09.[23] Again the proof come from a unsigned online data- this time from a Deutch paper. Opinion again. not confirmed from anybody or any official side. I can assure the reason was other and particular which I'm not allowed to disclose.

As for Nacional da Madeira undergo..... we rather not talk about. too ugly. My name is José Maciel da costa. Should you want to come in contact.... (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.246.137.191 (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to BLPN. I've checked the citations you've discussed (a–c) and corrected the article according to what the cites actually say. I also removed a cite to an apparently dangerous website. As for your points (d–e), you'll need to find reliable sources to support your propositions. Your point (e) is directly contradicted by the reliable source cited, and while somewhat negative, it doesn't appear with any WP:UNDUE weight or present a glaring WP:POV problem, so I haven't made any changes there. If there's anything further, please don't hesitate to leave another note here. JFHJr (㊟) 19:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Paul Scholes

Final paragraph in the 'Personal Life' section seems poorly written and inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.129.124 (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph in question seems accurate per the cites that support it. What exactly do you think is inaccurate? JFHJr (㊟) 21:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Craig Williamson

May be the worst person on earth, but his BLP is likely one of the worst on Wikipedia, replete with quite serious and unsourced accusations, etc. And the note that SA gave him amnesty in 1999 is relegated to a single sentence - while there are vast amounts of allegations presented sans source in the BLP. Not to mention links which do not quite support the claims where a cite is actually given. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Emily Deschanel

someone wrote "she is the less attractive sister" in the early life/family section. this is opinion (rude), not fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.238.231.178 (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Done Looks like someone got to it. The Interior (Talk) 15:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

marcus dupree

He is currently working as an oil rig clean up crew from BP spill — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.15.146 (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The After NFL is questionable esp. with son. I just saw a documentary on TV. Plus there are many misspellings as if hastily typed and not carefully reference checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.253.15.146 (talk) 06:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't create duplicate threads, and be more specific about your concerns about Marcus Dupree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (difs, sources, etc would be helpful) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Abu Omar case

Are the birthdates and birth places in this section of the article necessary? I don't see how it adds value to the article and appears to be an unnecessary publication of private information.--v/r - T P 14:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any reason for inclusion of the birth pace/dates, or, really for the list itself. The paragraph above it details convictions, which are notable. But a list of all people charged? not so sure. The ref given is a broken link to a user-generated news site. I'd yank the whole thing. The Interior (Talk) 15:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Support for these comments - and - removed. Youreallycan (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Edward Garnier

Dear Editor, Please delete all references to the links between Edward Garnier and Tony Wilson. I can confirm that this is erroneous. There is no direct or indirect link connecting Edward Garnier and Tony Wilson. Please see both articles. Edward has two elder brothers and one younger sister. With kind regards Jimmy Garnier, No 1 brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.10.244.93 (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't see why we should remove the link. It says in the article of Edward Garnier that Wilson is the step brother, not actual brother, and in any case the exact family relationship is irrelevant; the section is personal life and on Wilson's article it only has one reference to Garnier; I really don't think any change is necessary. Please also see WP:COI if you really are Edward Garnier's brother, and to stay away from subjects like this. Rcsprinter (converse) 19:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If it is unsourced then it needs to be removed, as I see it was and has been. - Sitush (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, per our policies it should be sourced, particularly since we have a claim that it is not true. If it can be sourced, then it should be re-added. --FormerIP (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Bo Lozoff

A user named "molliegiles" has three times today edited this biography of a living person with material that is unsourced in violation of the guidelines on biographies of living persons. The biography has contained a reference to a 2008 scandal involving Bo Lozoff in its current, sourced form. "molliegiles" is trying to add material supposedly about Lozoff's daughter-in-law and also a child born out of wedlock in 2007, both of which are unsourced vandalism to this biography. Conroversy surrounding Lozoff is already mentioned. Leave it at that.Truthcon (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Truthcon (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

- I gave a note and a reqwuest to the User:Molliegiles pointing him to this discussion and asking him not to replace the uncited and contensious content - he replaced it without comment - I have requested semi protection, removed the content and given him a level three warning. Youreallycan (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

- Semi isn't going to prevent an auto-confirmed account continuing. However, continue he did, so indef blocked and now semi'd against further IP attacks. Some people reviewing the article would be good.--Scott Mac 14:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Scott. There was a controversial 2008 report and some unverified claims from ex prisoners (unnamed) in an expose which I think resulted inthe subject stepping down, but I am unsure if its a RS or a user upload - "what they call a "freelancer" - there were some retractions from the original article, it doesn't seem to have been widely reported - a mention might be in order with the cite and another independent reliable' report of the issue if one can be found. -

- http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/the-two-faces-of-bo-lozoff/Content?oid=1210498 - original article - all these are August 2008.

- http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/going-off-about-lozoff/Content?oid=1210705 - editors note and comments - he refers to the original article as their "cover story"
- http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/CodeofEthics/Page - editorial code of ethics

- Independent Weekly - our article - does appear to a bit of a red top drama tabloid.

I'm actually wondering whether this guy is notable at all. There are almost no independent sources here. I was considering redirecting to Prison-Ashram Project, but then I wondered whether that was notable either - same sourcing problems. Thoughts?--Scott Mac 14:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, quite limited independent notability for Lozoff, this little local controversy seems the height of his independent notability. Youreallycan (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

One thing, I attempted to review all the references cited on this article and the last four links went no where. That leaves the subject's two websites, the biofuel and human kindness sites, his open letter to God, and one article by the Independent Weekly. The Independent Weekly does discuss Lozoff's biofuel project. Would these taken together amount to WP:Notability?Coaster92 (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Not if as your investigations assert, that is all their is. Youreallycan (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Kashif Siddiqi

I have been in e-mail contact with Kashif Siddiqi regarding his article over the past few days - he e-mailed me links to some reliable sources and I expanded the article accordingly. He seemed happy and was going to get more for me, but today he has e-mailed me saying:

After a lot of thought with family and speaking to my manager iv decided i don't want an article about me on wikipedia, as don't feel right about people having the access to write whatever they want about me. Can you advise me how to ask wikipedia to take it down or can you do that from your end mate?

I have e-mailed back advising I would post here, as I don't think we would take down an article on request, especially given that there are no BLP issues present on it - it is well-sourced and neutral. But I'm coming here to seek wider input. Thanks, Giant Snowman 18:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It is well sourced and neutral. There is no consensus support for WP:OPTOUT at this time. If that was accepted he appears to qualify - he is not very notable is he really, a footballer of minor note - was in the Pakistani squad a couple of times - doesn't appear to have played in 2010-2011 season at all and currently doesn't have a team. If I was you I would nominate him for deletion and at least then you have honored his request and leave it to the AFD voters. Youreallycan (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding notability, he is an international player who has played in Olympic qualifiers - the more information he was due to send in my original post was confirmation that he had earned a total of 9 caps rather than the 1 sourced in the article. He meets WP:NFOOTBALL clearly, and is not eligible for deletion on notability grounds. Giant Snowman 18:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If there were an AfD, I would !vote delete per WP:NPF if there were a verified request for deletion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he meets [[WP:NFOOTBALL - With the article being neutral I think at an afd in this case I would optout of voting. Youreallycan (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Back to the point at hand - he is concerned that the article will be negatively vandalised and not picked up on. I watch it, would it be possible for others to do the same? And would it be possible (a long shot I know) to perhaps protect the page? Giant Snowman 10:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Laciura

Defamatory comment regarding tonight's performance of National Athem at BCS championship. Very subjective and unsubstantiated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.168.85.149 (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Dealt with in this edit. – ukexpat (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Article names and presumption of innocence?

In 2009, four members of the Shafia family were found dead in a car at the bottom of a canal. They had all drowned.

Today, three other members of the Shafia family are on trial for their murder, as described in "Shafia family murder."

However, no one has yet been convicted of this crime -- and, in fact, the defence argument is pretty much "it's all a tragic accident, they lost control of the car and fell into the canal". In other words, that there was no murder.

So what I'm concerned about is that the article name, by calling the four deaths a 'murder', effectively presumes guilt. Is this a valid concern, and if so, how should we address it? DS (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Rename to Death of Shafia family and if any of the defendants gets convicted we can rename it back to Shafia family murder.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Renamed to Shafia family deaths, as "Death of" implies that the entire family died, which is clearly not the case, as other family members are the accused. --GRuban (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Rick Santorum

Debate ongoing in the talk article for Rick Santorum, regarding if it should be "explicit" or "whitewashed" content regarding Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism in the biography article. Nobody is debating the notability of the neologism to be in its own article, or referencing the concept of the neologism in the main biography. Debate is between calling it "an offensive sexual act" (or some sort of other euphamism, and linking to the neologism article), and listing the exact definition "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex". Please contribute to the discussion in the existing talk article. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Article is thankfully semi protected - the living subject is under heightened partisan attacks after his recent rise in popularity. All sorts of undue comments on the talkpage starting to appear - it will only get worse as the Republican candidate selection gets closer. Attention will be required from npov experienced contributors on the talkpage. Talk:Rick Santorum - Youreallycan (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Appending: [26] shows an intense desire on the part of one editor to use [27]. I suggested that this was an editorial (it contains what I consider to be strongly editorial wording, but I suggest others read it). The other editor seems to think "proof" is needed that it is an editorial and not factual reportage <g>. Might others please examine the use of the editorial in a BLP? Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. The article is filed under the "News" headline, and not marked as an editorial or opinion piece. It also does not have a byline, so presumably it represents the voice of the newspaper. On the other hand, it certainly contains some commentary in addition to a lot of reporting. On the third hand, the website seems to sometimes list "Editorial" and "Opinion" under "News". I'd say this is a badly organised website, and it should be used with some caution. On the fourth hand, The Philadelphia Inquirer is a serious newspaper with plenty of Pulitzers... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you read it? It is addressed in a manner which is obviously editorial in nature, as far as I can tell. And unsigned editorials are common for that newspaper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It ain't just the one Philly article that mentions the Savage-generated alternate meaning for Santorum. The Seattle Post-Intelligence, Forbes and the National Post have all run articles since the start of the year on the issue. Tabercil (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It's also mentioned in the current issue of The Economist. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Rick_Santorum

- Talk:Rick Santorum#Semi-arbitrary break

A lot of discussion here on whether BLP allows inclusion of the redefinition of Santorum as [deleted at will per Youreallycan below] to be included in the article. Help would be welcomed.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Noting that the number of times the "definition" now appears on Wikipedia is, itself, likely a BLP violation if anything is. If such a "definition" appears, say, on multiple Wikipedia pages, one might think that such repetition is quite intentionally aimed at perpetuating a "definition" not used by any RS dictionary or reference book as a "definition" at all. Collect (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This editor has repeated the made up smear definition in almost every single talk page edit they have made over the past few days. It would appear that they have an agenda to try and promote the smear attack started by Savage. The explicit made up personal attack definition itself serves to add nothing to the article. Arzel (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

- Some interesting redirects to the neo article - Youreallycan (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe most of those are BLP violations since they use the Capital letter "S" in the word redirect. It is my understanding that the redirect to the slang attack word had to use the lower case "s". Arzel (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to delete at will - That IP:93.96.148.42 you mentioned is basically spamming frothy lube and fecal matter all over the place today, seems like every other post they are posting it, see 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 (twice in this post) 13 14 all from today. Youreallycan (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth would using the capital S be considered a BLP violation? That makes no sense at all. DreamGuy (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Nicole Kidman

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

Persistent violations of WP:BLPCAT on this article, more eyes welcome. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You might get more help if you tell us what the nature of the violation is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the article. Mo ainm~Talk 23:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Relevance to her career has been established due to public criticism from Catholic leaders about her acting role in The Golden Compass and public responses on her part:

Some Catholic Leaders Upset Over New Nicole Kidman Movie (Fox News)
Is "Golden Compass" Anti-Catholic? (CBS News)
Kidman Says Religious Content of 'The Golden Compass' Has Been "Watered Down"] (Moviefone)
Nicole Kidman's Faith Shifts 'Golden Compass' Needle (News Max)
There are many more. Yworo (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Just this one source is enough to show that the category is relevant to her career and public life:

Nicole Kidman, who stars in “The Golden Compass,” spoke with Entertainment Weekly about the film. She told the magazine that she was raised Catholic and that the Catholic Church is part of her “essence.” She added that she wouldn't be able to do the film if she “thought it were at all anti-Catholic.”
The sweet result is that the religious message put forth in the film version of the book “has been watered down a little,” according to Kidman. -Nicole Kidman's Faith Shifts 'Golden Compass' Needle (News Max)

Yworo (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I also concur that BLPCAT has been met, as there are multiple sources which talk about her catholocism and its affect on bother her personal and professional life. I have made a significant contribution to the article talk page listing a plethora or references which can be seen in this diff. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Carli Lloyd

Resolved

– Semi-protected and brought to the attention of WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone keeps making malicious comments/opinions of Carli as a player in her biography. Nothing about these opinions is educational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anc07 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The article has been semi-protected, so that should hopefully resolve the spate of problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Amitabh Bachchan

This is an odd one. It seems that in 2001 the subject of the Amitabh Bachchan article may have identified with the Kayastha caste - see this news report. However, last year he appeared to reject the notion of caste and remarked on his own mixed heritage - see this story.

Both of those stories are in The Times of India. The only reliable Indian newspaper, imo, is The Hindu but if we must rank the TOI then it is certainly better than most of the others that I have come across, even if distinctly dodgy.

So, what do we do in a situation where there are reports indicating both self-identification and an apparent rejection of the whole idea. Do we use the later source or do we show both. And if we show both, then should he be included in the List of Kayasthas and categorised as such? - Sitush (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Showing both in his article would be a neutral way for us. A footnote can be added in List of Kayasthas. Category, i dont know. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There is more to it than just neutrality, especially bearing in mind that the TOI is not a fantastic source (a recent example being a complete misquoting and misrepresentation generally of things involving Jimbo in India). The earlier article is a truly dreadful piece of writing, even allowing for the differences that comprise Indian English. And if he now rejects caste then I struggle to see how he can be included in the list as a self-identifier - even more so given the roots that he claims. - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone care to comment? This needs some sort of consensus etc. - Sitush (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that he should be labeled as a Kayastha, as he is of mixed ethnicity and rejects caste-identification for his family. Had he been purely of Kayasth parentage however, one could make a valid argument for mentioning it. Joyson Prabhu ^{Holla at me!} 14:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

On the face of it, Animeshkulkarni's proposal has merit, with addition that categorization should be resisted. In other words, text possibly, category no. (All this with the caveat that I have not delved into this to look for other sources.) Drmies (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The article currently has nothing on caste and no categories (unless I missed something). It seems perfectly acceptable to me to keep it that way. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)