Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive145

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

Sajeel Shahid

HI, I have discovered this page it has information about myself that is not true and is defaming my character, I have never given any interview to any newspaper and this case was dealt 5 years ago and apology letters received from these newspapers, pls remove this page thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.68.193.145 (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The article appears well-sourced (perhaps with some WP:NPOV concerns). The IP user could be a namesake. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 23:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nick. There doesn't seem to be a sourcing problem in that they appear reliable. If the IP truly is the subject, I suggest first contacting the publishers in question, especially the BBC and The Sunday Times. They'll be happy to post a retraction, redaction, or correction. If there is one already online (I didn't find any), a link here would be grand. It may also be worthwhile contacting WP:OTRS by e-mail to provide more firsthand information (apology letters, etc). JFHJr (㊟) 00:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I declined a G10 attack page speedy deletion request from user Knowledgesearch2 (talk · contribs). The user has now written to me saying that she is the subject's wife and objecting to the article as unfair and inaccurate. I have pointed her to OTRS. JohnCD (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing it, but I don't see anything establishing that Shahid is aka "Abu Ibrahim". The Newsnight transcript attributes the extended quotation to "Abu Ibrahim", and our infobox says he is aka this name, but the Newsnight transcript doesn't use Shahid's name and I see no source that connects Shahid to this alias. The other two references are fine, but unless there's something to establish the connection #2 might have to go. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The first citation – [1] – establishes it as an alias. All three articles refer to Al Muhajiroun. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 23:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I suppose that's good enough (it should be added as a reference in the infobox, then). On the other hand, I wonder how many "Abu Ibrahims" there are. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

- I am glad (and my fathers expensive lawyer is pleased with me) that I am not responsible for any additions or admin actions to keep that article published using en wikipedia. He is not really notable is he, we have three citations with his name in them, all returning to a single event - and nothing that he is really a notable person imo. Youreallycan 23:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This can be taken to AfD. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 23:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

The article about myself contains many false information and lies and fabrication. Here is why?

(1) The comment [2] posted under Sajeel Shahid wikipage that is being attributed to me by the author of wiki page has not been made by me at all, but rather by someone else. I left al-muhajiroun in 2002, and this is public knowledge. If you go to the information sourced No2, you will not find the name Sajeel Shahid anywhere. This comment has been made by some one else named abu ibrahim, and not Sajeel Shahid. There are alone 6 Al-Muhajiroun members in UK whose alias is abu ibrahim. Ibrahim is a very common name people give to the children after the Prophet ABraham, and this is very common alias for many muslims. Also this interview is made in england, with some Al-Muhajiorun members and I was in Pakistan in 2004 and had no relationship with al-muhajiroun as I left them in 2002.

(2) Also the first statement that says I am one of the leader of Al-Muhajiroun is also a lie, again this statement is without proof. I just use to sympathize with their political views. There is no article stating that I am a leader this is just use on wikipage also I have never been quoted as saying that I am one of the leaders of Al-Muhajiroun. Also there is no statement by this party to say that I was one of their leaders.... Also someone might have sympathy to a party, and to represent it as that I support the all the views of this organisation is also grave injustice comments like "that endorsed alQaedas terror attacks on September 2011" I never made such statements, so why attribute to my page is indirect false accusations.

(3) Also the information source 1 by (Nick Fielding) all relying upon one point that sajeel told an arabic newspaper, which newspaper? no name!! I have never given any interview to arabic newspaper as I dont speak arabic in 2004 upto 2007. To not name the arabic newspaper and to say in there that I know this person, which I never met in my life is fasle fabrication to the highest level.

(4) I have been in the UK since 2005, without any charge, not even one fine in my name. My only crime is that I use to run a madrasa (school) in lahore that hosted 190 students in there, how does I know who comes to studies there, but media never asked him no interview just story that has been made up.

I run two successfull buisness here, please dont malign my name with these false sourced information.

To summarise: To pose someone else comment and attribute to me is a huge injustice, just because the alias may be the same is no evidence at all especially when I was not even in UK. To call me one of the leaders of al-muhajiroun without evidence is a lie To base all articles on a arabic newspaper without quoting it is also leading to making lie against me

I look forward to a reply many thanks Sajeel Shahid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgesearch2 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

- In support of your comments I have nominated the article for a seven day deletion discussion - You are free to join in the discussion and to make one vote for either keep or delete. Read WP:AFD for details of how the process works. Youreallycan 17:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sajeel Shahid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am the contributor who contributed the original draft of this article. I have several requests.

Could you please follow the steps to confirm your real world identity? We have a team of trusted volunteers whose task is to confidentially confirm real world identities -- this is the WP:OTRS that other contributors have requested you use. I think it is very important for every individual who requests an article's deletion, asserting it is about them, confirm their real world identity, because, unfortunately, some individuals would happily spoof us, claim to be the subject of an article, as part of a campaign to tailor the wikipedia's coverage of a range of topics.
Two requests for speedy deletion were made to this article, a G7 and a G10. Did you make both of them? G7 is for the use of a person who contributed an article, only to realize they made a mistake, like misreading the references. So, I would have been eligible to use G7, but you wouldn't, and neither would anyone else.
Were you responsible for all the following edits? [2], [3], [4], [5], [phttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sajeel_Shahid&diff=475621640&oldid=475525730]?

OK. Thanks. Geo Swan (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not knowledgble about wikipedia and how it works, so I dont understand even following the link on how to certify my identiy. If you could explain I am glad to follow it
I have not requested any deletion, my family noticed this article and has brought to my attention only yesterday to help put my points across. The same is with the edits as I have only put my points across yesterday

Please mr author, note I went to pakistan in 2000, to start an islamic school, I had sympathy for al-muhajiroun but than left them in 2002, when there was no other reason for me to do so except an ideological one. For one interview you tarnish rest of the life of someone. How fair is this. You have even lied again, I have never inspired people to go to pakistan to take part with taliban. Show me one proof for that... Do you have an agenda or some motive? Are you the same person who has for the last six year trying to publish a book and wanted to meet me ? Please have some respect of the life of other people, especially when the other person is clearly stating that you are labelling accusation against him ..... my mistke is only to open an islamic school for 2 years !! an give one interview !! is that a crime !!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgesearch2 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Please visit this link for instructions on how to contact Wikipedia to request deletion of the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That article has been expanded and allegedly improved to make the person appear as if a massive player in terrorism - Sajeel Shahid when he is clearly not at all. - - Youreallycan 21:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

AfD

Sent to Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sajeel Shahid. I invite other editors to consider the arguments being made there -- particularly (from my perspective) the fact that incidental newspaper mentions are being used to support a case for notability even though none of the sources are substantially about the subject as WP:N would require. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Viggo Stoltenberg-Hansen

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The section "Supervision, Mentoring, and Lecturing" appears to be highly subjective, and to lack appropriate sources. Revert? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.37.43 (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The article currently has no sources about this person. Notability? Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Shabby as the article may be, the first two hits at the scholar link lead me to assume this subject would most likely pass WP:PROFESSOR criterion 1 (note 1). In aggregate, the rest of the results there also indicate he's relatively notable. JFHJr (㊟) 00:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea to find at least one source that is actually about this person: otherwise we have nothing to verify his existence let alone the most basic biographical details. To establish WP:PROFESSOR 1 you need to demonstrate "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". That is, sources that discuss his work as such. Note 1 refers to numerous citations of his work. I don't currently see any of that in the article. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Football Association of Indonesia

I am not very familiar with either the Indonesian language or with soccer, but I found this article to be full of unreferenced claims of criminality and malfeasance by living persons in the organizations which organize and control the sport there. I have tagged some of the claims regarding Nurdin Halid and "Eli Cohen," as needing references, but I cannot read the local language press to find reliable sourcing, and I hesitate to remove statements that might be sourceable by someone fluent in the language. "World Football Insider," a website, is referenced at one spot, but I'm not sure it constitutes a reliable source to satisfy WP:BLP. A closely related article is Nurdin Halid, which has numerous statements that he is infamous, involved in criminal cases, corrupt, and jailed multiple times. These claims are referenced first to a broken link (present ref 2 of the Halid article) to a publication called Kompas, March 23, 1999. Then there are statements of convictions or prosecutions for other crimes ref'd by non-English publications, which does not violate BLP but which bear checking by someone fluent in the Indonesian language. There is one English language article in Kompas, a newspaper website, from March 10 2011 which verifies some of the claims, but does not substantiate all the negative statements in the two articles. Some help would be appreciated from someone fluent in Indonesian to check the refs and make sure all negative BLP statements in the two articles conform to policy and have adequate refs to reliable sources. Edison (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Surely if this is an article in the English version of Wiki, we should have sources that are in English? If not then that material can be removed. --BwB (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Foreign-language sources are permitted, just not "preferred". See WP:NOENG. Material should not be removed just because the source is foreign, if otherwise reliable.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Militant atheism

I'm concerned that numerous editors have been reinstating content at Militant atheism that defamatory to numerous living people. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that groups can be covered by BLP unless there are specific named individuals either referred to in the article or so unusually closely associated with a group that a statement about the group could reasonably be understood by the majority of readers as a statement about a specific individual. Is that the case here? Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is the case here. There are four or five prominent people associated with "New Atheism", all but one of whom are living. They stand to be defamed by the terse pronouncement in this disambiguation page. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I would caution individuals reading this noticeboard to see the pending report against User:Jweiss11 as well as read the following paragraph. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 07:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The report against against me is nothing more another facet, in addition to issue I've raised here, of a disgusting, inappropriate, biased, conservative push by Anupam and others. It has no place on Wikipedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no mention of Militant atheism at the New Atheism article, a situation which I think is correct, since the term is derogatory only, not encyclopedic. With no cited explanation, New Atheism cannot be listed as a dab link at Militant atheism. Binksternet (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The reference to New Atheism violates MOS:DABENTRY.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Without a named individual it is hardly a BLP issue. The "P" is BLP refers to person. Groups don't qualify. If groups did equate to persons then this board would be terabytes in size. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

As long as small, identifiable groups are concerned, it remains a BLP concern. Compare "the Bush Family" or "the Kennedys", or "The Right Brothers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Has the maximum size of a "small group" ever been set on Wikipedia? Collect (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

8.5 billion is a reasonable upper bound. Sharper bounds will, in my opinion, very much depend on context. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(and all this time I resisted) You also have to index for population growth.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

New Atheism is a sort of combination term for about four (or maybe slightly more) individual writers, and the "militant" label is used by their critics. Pushing for the militant label here on Wikipedia raises some of the same issues that came up about the Santorum neologism, in terms of to what degree Wikipedia should promote a critical term. Anyway, the "militant" page is now at AfD, where it probably belongs. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Tony Martin (comedian)

This article is the subject of an OTRS complaint. I'd appreciate it if experienced editors here could add it to their watchlists and keep an eye on it. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Already. Wifione ^Message 14:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

CC Patil

Hello. Another user and I would like some clarification on the appropriateness of some article additions I am proposing. I may be violating BLP. Here is the article as I proposed it. Here is the discussion on the talk page. The other user makes a claim that I am advocating for something; we had talked a little here also. I expect that anyone who reads what I have written will find that what I have stated comes from reliable sources and is a NPOV representation of what those sources state. I am asking for comments about the suitability of the material I am proposing to add and how it can be improved if it is to be included in the article at all. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be a desire to include one single facet of his position to add weight that he is hypocritical, seems undue imo - it all sits better at the 2012 Karnataka video clip controversy - Regarding your desired addition, what involvement has CC Patil in the slutwalk? Youreallycan 17:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

See here - Talk:C_C_Patil. I added a Slutwalk section. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

To third parties: Please see Talk:2012 Karnataka video clip controversy#Quotations from news reporters and Talk:2012 Karnataka video clip controversy#Requested move. Bluerasberry seems to be under the impression that Wikipedia is a vehicle for advocacy and does not take responsibility for the content he inserts about living persons. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why users feel they can use wikipedia for personal activism. That thought pattern is detrimental to the NPOV of the whole en project. Its better to get a blog and vocalize there, they are free. Youreallycan 17:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this would help put things in perspective : User:Bluerasberry/hindu terror. The politician belongs to the conservative Bhartiya Janata Party which is also listed on this heavily biased travesty that exists in userspace. Hence the attention. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That is not my motivation. If my userpage is a problem then please say so, but you linked to a series of excerpts and links and nothing I have written. I know nothing about the BJP. I work in HIV education in India, and I know very little about Indian political parties. So far as I know no Indian political party is very supportive of HIV educational issues. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

EDIT - I deleted the page on request. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

After a little look I am not seeing support anywhere that this part of your desired addition is anything to do with the subject - "For reasons of "moral grounds" the state government in the context of Patil's statements had also denied permission to a group organizing a political protest called a slutwalk" - I can't see support for it in the citation you wanted to support it with, http://www.tehelka.com/story_main51.asp?filename=Ws080212Karnataka.asp - if it is could you point me to it please. It says the government opposed the slut walk on moral grounds but not that it opposed the slut walk because of CC Patil - it looks like WP:synth to me. What exactly has that slutwalk got to do with this living person, what does this mean "the state government in the context of Patil's statements " - ? and where is it cited to? Youreallycan 18:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I responded to you above with a redirect to the article page. I have more citations here. Thanks for giving feedback. I agree that what I have written is unclear. Would you be comfortable moving this discussion to the C C Patil page? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. One non specific comment to all, is to be careful when reading low level press reports - they often assert without words and its easy to read it as per their desired unspoken assertion and then rewrite that unspoken assertion for inclusion in an article. I have only an interest if there is a dispute, if you want my opinion on a future desired addition please feel free to ask on my talkpage. Regards - Youreallycan 19:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Maanvi Gagroo

Resolved

– BLP problems addressed, discussion opened at talk page, referred to WP:AFD for further WP:N concerns. JFHJr (㊟) 02:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The person does not have any achievements of note and the profile does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for biographies of living persons. The article should be removed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newlyp (talk • contribs) 21:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The article has a sourcing problem, but I haven't removed material since I didn't find the content problematic. Meanwhile, I think it's likely WP:TOOSOON to call this actress notable under WP:NACTOR because she's had one supporting role and a handful of apparently very small roles. I'll wait for more input from others regarding notability, since I'm not very keen on Bollywood stars. If you feel this article really needs to go now, you should visit AfD (we don't actually delete articles at BLPN). Read WP:BEFORE to see how to nominate for deletion. JFHJr (㊟) 22:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with JFHJr. I would also add that AfD is not for the faint of heart. I've added a notability tag.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The sourcing problem, for now, is mostly fixed. Otherwise, it's been marked for improvement. Further notability concerns should be heard at the talk page or at WP:AFD. JFHJr (㊟) 02:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

John Fleming (U.S. politician)

Wondering if anyone is available to take a look through Dr Fleming's article and see that it's balanced and appropriate? I've had a couple of complaints come in to the WMF about it. Thanks! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems reasonably balanced. However the last section may possibly give undue weight to a recent relatively minor incident, so minor that I'd hardly classify it as an "incident". It was removed by an IP, but then restored. See [6]. The incident is in no way defamatory, but could be slightly embarassing. It's referenced to Politico and was also picked up by UPI, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post all citing Politico as the source. It probably should be considerably pared down. This is especially so since the article discusses nothing about him after the 2010 campaign and then abrubtly devotes a whole section to this news snippet from three days ago. Voceditenore (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed the onion section - as, undue weight to trivia. Youreallycan 17:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that's sensible. Voceditenore (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It was replaced by User:Goethean without any discussion - I removed it again as undue weight to trivia and left him a note linking to this discussion thread. Youreallycan 19:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The incident received extensive media coverage in Time magazine, The Boston Globe, New York Daily News, New York magazine, International Business Times, The Advocate, The Hill, CBS News. For Wikipedia to elide the incident would be distinctly odd. — goethean ॐ 20:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

can you say "slow news day"? the "story" has no legs. it is a complete blip in the life and career and importance and impact of the subject of the article. each of those pieces of coverage is simply the exact same content of the UPI story with the paragraphs cut and re-arranged. it has no place in the article. 75.73.44.170 (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If it were established that Fleming personally ordered the link, that might be worth including. Maybe. Since we don't know, it's not appropriate to include in a BLP. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If it were sourced only to the Onion itself, I could see the point about trivia and undue. But given the sources presented by Goethean, I think it's appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As most recently edited, the heading had been removed, which effectively put this item under the "2010 campaign" heading, which I would think anyone would agree is nonsensical. I moved it to the "House of Representatives" section and gave it a subheading simply because I didn't see any other way to place the info in the article that wouldn't look weird. (If anyone wanted to write something about what this guy has actually been doing since elected besides the two incidents in which he's been widely mocked, it would presumably help the article appear "balanced" and place less emphasis on those incidents, relieving the WP:UNDUE concerns.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't see anywhere to put it - and as a header I was only getting trivia or facebook comments - the header the onion incident is just more satire - its not an incident at all, and as we are requested not to add trivia sections, the trivia it should be even in the article, so I was in two minds - and he mistook a satirical article as if a not satirical one and it was pointed out to him and he removed in - what trivial newsy nonsense. If you insist on including it, I think Facebook comments is a better header. Youreallycan 22:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is continuing on the article talk page Talk:John_Fleming_(U.S._politician)#The_Onion_.22incident.22 - a centralized discussion there would be helpful. 75.73.44.170 (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Steven Hassan

Monica Pignotti is a user who has been focused on the Steven Hassan page. We have found out that Monica is actually in a real life dispute with Hassan [7]. She is specifically interested in inserting criticism into his article over his fees where she also posted his phone number as well as his methods. These include inserting her personal commentary: rephrasing the practice as "manipulative" in such a way that it does not appear in the original source. I'd like someone more experienced with BLP than I am to take a look at this.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing about the paragraph of criticism I inserted that violates any of Wikipedia's rules. I inserted correctly cited material from a published edited volume by widely recognized cult experts who disagree with Mr. Hassan. Coffeepusher appears to be intent on having all criticism of Mr. Hassan deleted from the article, which would result in an unbalanced article that contains only favorable material about Mr. Hassan. It is my understanding that it is desirable for Wikipedia articles to be balanced which means including criticism. The original source does express concerns about Mr. Hassan's approach resulting in manipulation. Various forms of the word "manipulate" are used repeatedly in the source material I cited. If the form of the word "manipulative" is a problem, I would be glad to change it to "manipulation" or "manipulativeness" both of which were used. I did not include "personal commentary". I paraphrased the source material because the moderator asked me not to quote directly. What we're talking about now is a very short paragraph describing the article.

Here is one example of a direct quote from the material in question (the Clark et al reference in the article):

"Hassan...says that our critique exaggerates the manipulativeness of his approach." (p. 175) So here you can see clearly that even Steve Hassan interpreting their writings as accusing him of being manipulative. I did not invent this word. It is used repeatedly throughout the article.

Some of the material that comes up on a Google search of my name and Hassan's, but the way are false, defamatory postings about both me and Steve Hassan. We were never in any kind of romantic relationship, as some of the postings state. These postings were part of a highly defamatory internet smear campaign against me that was perpetrated against me. Hassan and I merely have differences of opinion on the topic of cults.

The reference to the fees posting was something that occurred much earlier and has nothing to do with the present dispute. I did not originate his phone number -- it was publicly posted on his website in relation to his fees so I did not violate any kind of privacy, as Coffeepusher appears to be implying.MonicaPignotti (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify what Coffeepusher is objecting to, here is the latest version of the paragraph in question:

"In Recovery from Cults, David Clark, Carol Giambalvo, Noel Giambalvo, Kevin Garvy, and Michael Langone have written about Steve Hassan's approach to exit counseling.[26] They say that "...Hassan runs the risk of imposing clarity, however subtly, on the framework's foundational ambiguity and thereby manipulating the client."[26] Their central comment is that Hassan's approach is said to "effect" change without the cult-involved person's prior approval and is hence, risks manipulating the client, whereas in contrast, Clark et al.'s informational approach "invites" change."

The phone number was a direct quote from his website and involved an edit that was made two and a half years ago in order to provide an update, since earlier some other author had posted his fees in the Wikipedia article which were no longer posted on his website. MonicaPignotti (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

actually this is not a continuation of the content dispute, that is going on on the talk page and I have let you and Will figure that one out.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone who is in a dispute with a person in real life should not be editing that persons biography - at all. This is straight and basic conflict of interest. You are more than welcome to edit wikipedia MonicaPignotti, but please don't edit articles where you have a personal stake - it compromises the integrity of the encyclopedia. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no "personal stake". I simply disagree with Mr. Hassan on a professional level, but I did not insert any of my own disagreements into the article. I merely inserted and quoted from a published reference.MonicaPignotti (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A google suggest that you have worked to get his license revoked which would of course more than a professional disagreement. In any case just like COI doesn't allow you to edit biographies about yourself it also doesn't allow you to edit article about people with whom you are in a public disagreement. It doesn't really matter whether the particular edits were not your own arguments. I am sure you wouldn't like Steve Hassan to edit your biography either. If the biography needs sourced criticism then someone who is less personally involved in the topic will provide it. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That statement is completely false. I never worked to get his "license revoked". That post you will notice is anonymous and made as part of a highly defamatory smear campaign against me. This was made by the same anonymous poster who said I had sex with Hassan, which is also completely false. I hope you understand that not everything posted on the internet is true. I am curious, though, whether the same rule applies to the "personal stake" of Steve Hassan's supporters who are obviously working very hard to keep all criticism out of the article. No problem, though, there are plenty of other places on the internet where I can and will post this well referenced criticism and there is nothing Mr. Hassan and his supporters can do to censor that.MonicaPignotti (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I realize that not necessarily all of that which is found in a google search is correct - the sher volume of the hits suggests that this is not just a professional dispute but some kind of larger dispute - quite possibly including one or more smear campaigns. The only way that ikipedia can hope to guard against becoming a vehicle for smear campaigns is by restrict the acces to adding negative information about living peope to persons who are not too close to the topic. For the same reson we don't allow editors to quote their own publications or edit their on biographies.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

so your purpose was to insert criticism of Hassan into the article and elsewhere on the internet?Coffeepusher (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No, with regard to the article, my purpose was to give the mostly positive article, some balance. That is supposed to be what Wikipedia is all about. With regard to the internet, my purpose is to help people be good mental health consumers by providing them with accurate information about mental health professionals and their practices. I have been completely up front posting under my real name. Would you be willing do disclose what your relationship is with Steve Hassan?MonicaPignotti (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You can go back to Mr. Hassan and report to him that he can thank you for giving me a great idea for my next blog article which will be a full, in depth discussion of the Clark et al chapter I referenced. I'm sure he'll be very grateful to you for giving me the idea.MonicaPignotti (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

for your first question no problem, funny story really. I found an edit on the Rick Ross (consultant) page that used religious freedom watch as a source. As religious freedom watch is a Scientology front group it does not qualify as a WP:RS so I deleted the entry and went to the talk page to discuss it. On the talk page the other editor mentioned questionable criticism on the Steve Hassan page which led me to your edits. Now if you look at my contributions you will notice that these are the only two people related to counselling that I have edited in my last 500 edits. I have no "relationship" with Steve Hassan or with cult exit counselling...or really with cults for that matter. I edit wikipedia. As for your second question outside of the phone number you have provided I have no idea how to contact Hassan and best of luck on your blog.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The criticism I cited was far from "questionable" and it was properly referenced. The authors are widely recognized cult experts. Michael Langone even has his own Wikipedia bio page and has far higher credentials than Hassan (a PhD as opposed to Hassan's Masters in Counseling and unlike Hassan, Langone has actually conducted research and has had it published in peer reviewed journals). In any case, there are likely to be future publications criticizing Hassan as I have a few of my own peer reviewed ones in the works. Hopefully some "neutral" person editing Wikipedia will cite these when published and they won't be suppressed.MonicaPignotti (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I will be happy to insert information from any peerrevieed publication relevant to Steve Hassan that I am made aware of. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I will say - that biography is overtly promotional, with bloated and exaggerated importance, and likely created or expanded by conflicted editor/s. Youreallycan 13:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I do know based on discussions on his former list serv, that Hassan has encouraged his supporters to contribute to his page and based on its tone, I suspect they have. That is why I was attempting to add some balance. In any case, I want to be sure I understand COI with regard to living person pages. Would that mean that ex-Scientologists who have spoken out against Scientology could not edit a page on David Micavige, Scientology's current leader? I ask since I am an ex-Scientologist who has spoken out against it and would like to know if that means I (or other Scientology defectors)should not edit David Miscavige's page.MonicaPignotti (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC).

Your question implies a specious argument. You could be a Scientologist and edit an article about Scientology (or the opposite). You could be gay and edit an article about a homophobe. All this assuming you are neutral in your edits, cite to reliable sources, etc. What's much more problematic is when you have a private dispute with a particular person and edit that person's article. In that situation, you should stay away from the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

In addition I would add that if you are a Scientology critic, and editing Scientology articles, you should exercise the greatest caution. Please see Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia for a brief primer on why editors editing the Scientology section of Wikipedia face the largest set of sanctions imposed upon any section of Wikipedia. Most of the people from both sides who edited during that time have since been banned from editing Scientology related articles.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The Scientology history is a special case, and although anti-Scientology editors were also banned, it's probably fair to say that the controversy and the resulting bans stem mostly from pro-Scientology edits. In any event, it's always important to be very careful in editing any controversial article, particularly if you have strong feelings about the subject. Although I believe some editors can maintain neutrality even in light of their personal views, obviously, editors' opinions on another editor's "neutrality" vary. Unfortunately, a kneejerk reaction to edits to some articles is to accuse the editor of having an "agenda". Before I started seriously editing here, I never knew I had so many agendas, many of which are inherently contradictory. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing the least bit specious about my argument. Go back and read what was written. I was told I could not edit Steve Hassan's bio page because of my history with him (and by the way, much of what is on the internet about me with regard to Mr. Hassan are outright falsehoods posted anonymously), not because my edits were not neutral. I did not insert my own opinions into the piece. I was properly citing a valid reference. Also, note that I specifically asked about David Miscavige's bio page, not pages about Scientology in general. I specifically noted the Miscavige page because it is directly analogous to this situation, as Miscavige is a living person. By the rationale that I have been forbidden from posting to Steve Hassan's bio page, I (and anyone else with a history of criticism of Scientology) should also be banned from posting to Miscavige's page. I'm not saying we should be banned, only pointing out the inconsistencies.MonicaPignotti (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

In response to your second paragraph, although some people tried to nitpick on forms of the word "manipulate" (various forms were used repeatedly in the article I cited and even Hassan was quoted as saying he was being accused of "manipulativeness") I did not inject my opinions into that and the description of the article in question was neutral. It is obvious to me that Steve Hassan has supporters that are working very hard to keep this page positive for him. The topic of Wikipedia edits to his page was discussed several times on his former list serv and there were insinuations that some of his friends have ties to Wikipedia editors and from the looks of the article, as others have also noted, it reads like a self-congratulatory puff piece. Since I am no longer allowed to edit this page, I hope that others for whom the neutrality of Wikipedia is important, will remedy this situation and add some balance to the article. I will move on, as I have tried my best to bring this highly unbalanced situation to light.MonicaPignotti (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Lee Hsien Loong

There is a lively discussion at Talk:Lee Hsien Loong about whether the following sentence is acceptable. Additional feedback would be very welcome. Jpatokal (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"As of 2012, Lee has a salary of S$2.2 million (US$1.7 million) a year.^[1] Despite a 28% pay cut, part of a Cabinet-wide reduction described by the Wall Street Journal as a post-election response to "public discontent over ministerial wages"^[2], Lee remains the highest-paid premier in the world.^[3]"

^{[1] — http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/world/asia/singapore-slashes-officials-salaries.html}
^{[2] — http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204468004577168620110589932.html}
^{[3] — http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/06/uk-singapore-politics-idUSLNE81503N20120206}

I have no real interest in this particular BLP, but given things I've read about others in this region, I'm led to wonder whether any of the active editors there are socks of User:La goutte de pluie. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

As of now, there is no increased sock puppet activity on Singapore-politics related articles. But this is a possibility that we must consider. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Óscar Mendoza Azurdia

Hi,

I want to clarify an issue regarding WP:BLP that arose on the Óscar Mendoza Azurdia. Based on information in this blog, which I fully admit would not be a reliable source in nearly any case, I changed the individual's BLP category from Category:Possibly living people to Category:Living people in this edit. User:Mewulwe reverted it in this edit calling it a "meaningless blog", which I disagree with. My interpretation of WP:RS and WP:BLP leads me to believe that if a source, regardless of its reliability for anything else, claims that someone is living, and there is no reliable source claiming the contrary, that person should remain in Category:Living people, which is better equipped than Category:Possibly living people to alert other editors of WP:BLP vandalism and violations. Rather than get into a revert war, however, I thought I would post this here to get some outside opinion, as it's more of a general question of interpretation rather than something specific to this article. Mewulwe will be notified after this posting. Canadian Paul 22:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not just is the blog as such not reliable, it doesn't even begin to offer any evidence that the person is alive. It is just playing with data it probably got from Wikipedia, assuming if there is no death date he must be alive. Mewulwe (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources which do not meet WP:RS cannot be used for the purpose of adding or verifying article content. If there is nothing extraordinary about this source then that rule should stand. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Rick Santorum

[8] shows the repeated addition of:

There he represented the World Wrestling Federation, arguing that professional wrestling should be exempt from federal anabolic steroid regulations because it was entertainment, not an actual sport.

Is the reporting of his position for a law client UNDUE here? Does it in any way imply that he personally approved of steroids for wrestlers? If one client's position is given in the BLP, would the positions he stated in other cases be equally germane? I suggested that such was the case, but have been reverted, therefore brought the issue here. Poklitical "silly season" is in full force. I fear. Collect (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Its totally undue - a single issue - from a period of employment - why that one only? Lawyers argue all kinds of stuff - coatracking that single one is totally undue. - Youreallycan 23:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you actually read WP:UNDUE? This is by far the most prominent case he handled as a lawyer. There's no implication in the text that Santorum approved of the practice. If you are aware of other cases which have received similar attention we might add those too. Will Beback talk 23:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

As for the accusation that this is tied to the so-called "silly season", the material was stable in the article long before Santorum declared his candidacy.[9] If anything, it's those who are deleting it from the article who are guilty of election-related editing. Will Beback talk 23:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If it was it should not have been - a passing comment in this lengthy op ed/article that starts with , Rick Santorum is taking a piss Youreallycan 23:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

- http://archives.citypaper.net/articles/2005-09-29/cover.shtml

That' a profile, not an Op-Ed piece. And there are other sources available. Since this does not violate BLP it should be restored. We can add another half-dozen sources to address the weight issue. Will Beback talk 23:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't add all those (imo worthless) proquest search results - There is no good reason to focus on it. In his career it isn't important. Youreallycan 23:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

A single sentence is not a focus, and reliable sources are not worthless. On the contrary, they are the basis of Wikipedia. Will Beback talk 23:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You desire to focus on that single issue from a whole period of employment. In his career it isn't important - Convince me that it is? Is the issue something specific that is a thread through his career - in his private life or as a politician has he commented about this steroid issue? - Youreallycan 23:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I see it is verifiable, and a single sentence doesn't qualify as undue weight.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It does if you choose to only report that case from four years work. Youreallycan 00:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

We focus on that case because it was the one that generated the most news coverage and public attention, and is thus more noteworthy than the other cases he covered. This is in agreement with WP:UNDUE. There is no WP:BLP issue here, because the material is factually correct, verifiable and reliably sourced. The sentence says nothing at all about his private life or beliefs, as they are irrelevant because he was acting in the role of attourney, which the sentence clearly states. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you got more citations that assert the particular importance of that case and the reasons behind that? Youreallycan 00:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevent. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Right back at ya. - I prefer to keep a decent level of discussion, but what can I say to such a comment .. Youreallycan 00:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to satisfy your curiosity, a quick Google search will turn up abundant hits for Santorum's wrestling-related activities. Do your own homework. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Dude, I am an adult! - I don't do homework. I also oppose this desired inclusion so I don't need to present any sources. Youreallycan 00:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Just above you said that Proquest's newspaper sources are "worthless". Do you want sources or are you making up your mind without based on some other consideration? Will Beback talk 00:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I will of course investigate accessible reliable externals. I have done a bit of searching myself already since the discussion began - please don't copy paste a bunch of proquest returns. What accessible reliable externals have you got that not only repeat this factoid but elaborate on it? Youreallycan 00:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC) -

What's your problem with Proquest? Will Beback talk 00:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I have seen users cut and copy reams of proquest returns to assert notability when actually they have not even accessed the articles. - and its impossible for users to investigate. Youreallycan 00:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a problem with any citations. It's not unique to Proquest. Even worse are people who post raw Ghits as if those mean anything. Will Beback talk 01:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you're deleting sourced material. That's unhelpful. Have you read all of the sources? Will Beback talk 00:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP having a citation is not a gold badge for guaranteed inclusion. 00:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

NPV calls on use to include significant material, as determined by reliable sources. If this doesn't qualify then nothing with fewer than four sources does either. Will Beback talk 01:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Support inclusion of K&L details The article currently says that Santorum "practiced law for four years at the Pittsburgh law firm Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, now known as K&L Gates." Four years... they same amount of time he was a U.S. Rep (for which the article has an entire section). What did he do while at K&L? Well, we have a reliable source that says "he represented the World Wrestling Federation, arguing that professional wrestling should be exempt from federal anabolic steroid regulations because it was entertainment, not an actual sport."1 I believe it is completely within policy to include this information. In fact, it would be nice to know more about what he did there. I advise this info be incorporated into the article for good so we can strive towards a comprehensive article. —Eustress ^talk 00:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

He did his job - what he was told to do, defended his clients to the best of his ability. This article will never be a featured article - its under opinionated partisan attack and all additions are in support of that focus. Youreallycan 00:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Cherry-picking a case from his career like that is odd. It looks obviously pointed. I don't think anyone above is arguing it's not true. They're making the case that it is biased coverage of his legal career. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It's the single most prominent case he had, so it isn't cherry picking to mention it. Will Beback talk 00:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: 1 biased source does not WP:DUE make. I mean really: "Rick Santorum is taking a piss." We can't find better sourcing that this? For a BLP?? This isn't AFA or NOM afterall. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

There are many available sources. If that's the basis for the oppostion I'll go ahead and restore it, using those as well. (Also, how do we know that source is biased? personal opinion?) Will Beback talk 00:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I am just curious...so the argument is that an article that starts out with "X is taking a piss" which appears in a WP:RS, was edited, reviewed, and published is questionable how? I understand that you would have started your own personal article about Rick differently but how exactly is it questionable?Coffeepusher (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

got two more sources [10] [11]Coffeepusher (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

And more: [12][13] (In addition tothe ones an editor deleted...)[14] Will Beback talk 00:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What does "Rick Santorum is taking a piss" mean? Will Beback talk 00:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

it's the opening line for the original sourceCoffeepusher (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Include: Abundant reliable sources out there supporting the sentence in question. His lobbying for the WWE stands out far above all his other activities as a lawyer, and generated a lot of national news coverage at the time, and again now.[[15]] [[16]] [[17]] [[18]] Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well that Beast article is clearly a bit of an attack - the fact that there are a few attacking articles about this factoid isn't any reason for us to repeat it. I think this http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060616/16santorum.htm - twenty factoids about the subject just about shows its worth. Youreallycan 00:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Which again is irrelevant. The sentence you are trying to remove from the article cannot in good faith be characterized as an attack. And yes, we repeat it--- because it is notable, as demonstrated by reliable sources. Also, his involvement with the WWE cannot in good faith be dismissed as a "factoid". It was the most important part of his carreer before he entered politics, and one that he was particularly proud of, judging from his 2006 campaign ad. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The article mentions most of the items in the list of 20. It is also included in a list of 11 things about Santorum. So two separate editors of widely respected publications think this is noteworthy for short lists of things about the subject, in addition to the other sources. Will Beback talk 00:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Additionally it is the only thing mentioned in conjunction with his time and K&L which refutes the claims that he did more notable things while practicing.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Honesty check time: A lawyer will state things in a case which are there to represent his client and that has absolutely nothing to do with his own beliefs.. Really! That is what lawyers are paid to do -- and the insistence that Santorum favoirs use of steroids is beyond "silly season" entirely. Cheers- and Will, I expect far better of you than this bit. Collect (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Politicians also say things to represent their constituents. But in other articles about lawyers we include their most prominent cases and their noted arguments. It comes down to following the sources. Will Beback talk 01:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Honesty check yourself. The sentence you object to does not in any way say that "Santorum favors use of steroids". This was not just any client in an isolated court case. It was his MAIN client, fellow conservative politician Linda McMahon, and the proceedings garnered a lot of national news coverage. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

yah, but unfortunately for your argument we have established WP:V and WP:WEIGHT using multiple secondary WP:RS, the fact that WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT doesn't justify the original claim for WP:UNDUE Coffeepusher (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, how is "He is getting paid for it" an excuse for anything? "He is being paid for being Sadam's executioner"? "He is being paid for dumping fuel oil in the Chesapeake Bay"? And so on... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

From the point of view of Santorum it appears that the issue was more general than just steroids. I had a roommate at the time when this was going on that loved wresling, I did not, but I was fasinated that they had to actually argue that it was not a sport and it was just entertainment since anyone with half a brain knew it was entertainment. It was a pretty big issue at the time, and I don't see a problem with some mention, just so long as it doesn't give the impression that Santorum is pro-steriods, which seems to be the issue that some are trying to push. This quote from ABC is a pretty good view of Santorum's view.

ABC “I was at the center of that,” Santorum told the Philadelphia Inquirer in 2010. “Pennsylvania was the most pernicious of states when it came to regulation. They made you pay all this money to the boxing [athletic] commission. They used to just rape these guys. You’d have to pay a certain percentage of the gate receipts to have these officials just stand around and watch the match. It was ridiculous.”

Arzel (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Support inclusion; BLP is meant to protect living people from anonymous editors, not from themselves. There's a reason it's not called WP:STUFFTHEGENIEBACKINTOTHELAMP. Besides, what Collect says is true; lawyers represent their clients irrespective of their personal beliefs; that would seem to make it less likely to reflect badly on him, given that it doesn't necessarily mean that was his personal view. Furthermore, as pointed out above it was his most prominent case, and there are plenty of good sources for it. Others arguing for inclusion have already elucidated what I would have above, so I'll say no more. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the ABC News cite Arzel found was helpful, and I reworded the material in the article, using that cite and getting rid of the pissing cite as unnecessary. I also gave the material a bit more context because it was a lobbying effort, not a case.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Not a BLP issue but oppose inclusion anyway. This is reliably sourced information about a public figure, so I do not see any undue harm. Nevertheless, this particular statement appears to be a trivial detail from his early legal career, and there is not enough sourcing to show due weight or relevance to why this affected him, his career, or the world at large to the point where it is part of his life story. More likely, it is just something dredged up by his political opponents as something to take out of context for an attack on his public image. It may indeed be or become a notable criticism or controversy, or more specifically a notable event in his political life - not his actual handling of the case, but the political fallout years later. However, I do not see the sources to show this either. Most likely it's just a true but non-notable factoid, of no biographical significance. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support inclusion. Reliably sourced information, not at all inappropriate weight. Consistent with WP:BLP. Edison (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
An op-ed has managed to cherry pick a factoid from Santorum's legal work to show that Santorum supported an absurd position (that's what lawyers are paid to do). The writer does not even pretend the statement is a fair summary of Santorum's legal career, nor does the writer have any particular knowledge of that career. Now editors want to cherry pick items from pieces written about Santorum to portray a particular view. That is a misuse of Wikipedia, and such double cherry picking should not appear in an article. If something about Santorum's legal career is desirable, find a source which is reliable for the topic (legal work in general, with a study of Santorum's work). Johnuniq (talk) 06:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose inclusion, even though there is at least one external citation that says that he reportedly argued for the use of steroids in a court, it is clearly evident that it is UNDUE to mention this in his biography article. Just saying that he represented the World Wrestling Federation (or WWE) should be enough. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support inclusion. Unless I'm wrong that it was the highlight of his legal career per RS. I may be wrong as I didn't research it deeply, but [19] and [20] both state it as the highlight. If this is not so, then please count my opinion as Oppose inclusion. But if you're going to mention one fact, you should mention the most notable, and you should give a full summary, that is the steroids as well as the Wrestling association. B^e——C_ritical 08:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support inclusion and if anyone can find sourced examples of other notable legal work he did, consider them for inclusion too. Should we remove all examples of lawyers who represented convicted murderers? Of course not, it's their job to do so. At no point is it stated or inferred that Santorum personally shared the opinions of his legal clients. WP:BLP not violated. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no BLP violation here, and that is now even clearer with the improved sourcing. I think Dominus Vobisdu and Blade of the Northern Lights sum it up the best. Neutron (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support inclusion. I am sick and tired of having every article censored to some Pollyanna version. If that's what BLP really means then for God's sake repeal it. In. Its. Entirety. Deleting inconvenient facts from the biographies of political candidates to make them more palatable to voters in the run-up to an election is an intellectual and political corruption of the highest order. Wnt (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose inclusion The "fact" is not well-founded as being remotely relevant to the BLP. Lawyers do not have the positions they take in representing a client as their own personal positions, so implying that Santorum supports steroid use is improper on that basis alone. The Molly Ball source does not support even the claim as cited to her, so that one is "right out" at the start. Last I checked, irrelevant "stuff" was not automaticllly included in BLPs contrary to the views of some. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It's already apparent from your opening statement that you oppose inclusion. Also, can you quote us which part of the article implies that Santorum supports steroid use? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, the fact that lawyers don't necessarily share the views of their clients would seem to make it less likely to reflect badly on him. And the redlink I have in my comment above is red for a reason. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion What an odd "out of know where" statement. I realize that the wording no where implies that he holds these views personally, but why add this case and not any other? Did it change case law? Was it argued before the Supreme court? Did he win, lose, draw? Did this case define his life and his life's work? If he doesn't hold this view, then why even have it in the article? Is this case being portrayed in the mass media, or is it just a snippet in a biography? Does the quality of the article diminish without this statement? Is the article improved with it? Just some questions to ask ourselves?--JOJ ^Hutton 20:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Users are opining that there is no BLP violation - the violation is that the desired addition is undue - WP:UNDUE to focus on this factoid from four years of work. - Youreallycan 21:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Undue weight it not a BLP violation, it's an NPOV violation. Weight issues should be adjusted by editing, not by ouright deletion. There's no justification for violating 3RR. Will Beback talk 21:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  - Thats exactly correct - the editing correction is removal - feel free to add it yourself - I won't be responsible for adding it - Youreallycan 21:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
    - So you're saying that the appropriate weight for the most famous case of his legal career is zero. Not even one sentence. And that adding even that one sentence would be so egregious as to be a violation of WP:BLP. Despite the fact that it is well-sourced and is the only case which anyone mentions from his legal career. Will Beback talk 21:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose inclusion. No problem with this being in Wikipedia per se, e.g. if sources were to indicate it's an important campaign issue, but in the short bio sketch of his early life where it's been entered it looks ridiculously undue and out of place. --J N 466 21:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- The bio is about his whole life, not just his current political campaign. Will Beback talk 21:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support inclusion. Factuality is not in question. This controversy demonstrates notability. Opposed? Go find out some other notable fact to "balance" it. Badams5115 (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support inclusion, naturally -- it appears to be the most significant component of his pre-political career. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support inclusion per Nomoskedasticity and Suriel1981. He iro 22:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support inclusion. I'm surprised such an innocuous detail has generated so much debate. If his work as a lawyer is important enough to mention then details of his legal career are certainly expected as well. This is an encyclopedia, not a resume. "He was a lawyer" is not sufficient. Gamaliel (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Support inclusion per the ABC News source reported by journalist Jake Tapper, added by Arzel.[21] As the source makes clear, this was also reported by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Santorum himself made an argument for the notability in wrestling in a 2010 profile in The Philadelphia Inquirer.[22] Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
support inclusion the phrasing of the content needs to be carefully appropriate - lawyers frequently represent clients whose views do not match their own - but that fact that he represented this particular client in certain efforts is the content that we have that have from reliable sources about that time in his life, and it is something that he himself seems proud of. I do not see how BLP applies. 75.73.44.170 (talk) 03:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
No particular view on inclusion but if it is mentioned, then can it be worded so as not to state or imply that Santorum personally agreed with the case he was engaged as counsel to make? Something like "Santorum was engaged to present the World Wrestling Foundation's case that professional wrestling should be exempt from federal anabolic steroid regulations on the basis that it was entertainment rather than sport." Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- I see what you are trying to do, but this would make the wording a little too ambiguous. The current wording says what he did, and I think it implies that he did it because he was engaged to do it. Your wording says what he was engaged to do, but leaves it unclear as to whether he actually did it or not. Also, your version changes Santorum from the "actor" to some sort of passerby or puppet. (In other words, it changes from active to passive voice, but the grammar itself is not really the issue here.) Neutron (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Support inclusion. If it were just the Philadelphia City Paper article it would be unclear (that first sentence is unfortunate, but the rest of the article is clear that it's a profile, not an opinion piece, but it is a minor paper), but the ABC News piece means it clearly crosses the line into being worth a sentence. --GRuban (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong place perhaps?

Perhaps my above comment got lost: I'm concerned that a !vote is forming here whether to include mention of Santorum's advocacy on behalf of the WWF, informed by matters far removed from whether the content is a BLP violation. I think there are 2-3 questions in one. My !vote (or rather comment, I don't mean to vote here) for example is that it's not a BLP matter. That's a far cry from endorsing that the material should be in the article in its present form, or in any form. Some argue here that the material should be included because it's reliably sourced and the BLP objection is without merit. Others say it should be excluded or rewritten as a weight or POV matter, or for not accurately representing the sources. Those two positions are not contradictory. As this notice board is for handling immediate questions of BLP violations, not making decisions on fine points of article content, we may be wasting our time here by trying to reach a consensus that is probably not binding on the regular editors over at the article page. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong place, definitely. It is not a BLP issue. If anything, it is a POV/Undue Weight issue, but not a very persuasive one at that, in my opinion. Anyone is free to find reliable sources regarding other important aspects of his legal career, if they exist, and add them to the article so that his representation of the WWF is put in context. Maybe he also represented the Girl Scouts against a cartel of price-gouging cookie manufacturers. Maybe not. We don't cut significant stuff out of an article because nobody has managed -- or more likely, nobody has bothered -- to find other stuff. But as you suggest, that is a POV issue, not a BLP issue. Neutron (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. This board is intended for BLP "issues", not just BLP violations. "This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing issues with biographies of living persons. These may include editing disputes and cases where contributors are repeatedly adding troublesome material over an extended period." And even if you believe that this discussion doesn't fall precisely within the quoted instructions (although note the phrase "may include"), as a matter of historical practice, we often discuss these kinds of issues on this board. It's a pretty healthy thing, in my view.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, in that case I'll change my !vote to do not include. :) - Wikidemon (talk) 02:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yuan Longping

This article contains propaganda from China. While it has warnings on the top, several contentious and overstated remarks had been present, which I, who have a doctorate in this related field, modified makingthem less contentious.

Please limit the further ability for contenious and exagerated remarks to be put forth by the Chinese until more academic references can be substantiated.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.25.157 (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Intezar Ahmed Abidi

The article is about an Indian politician. There are claims he murdered other politicians when the refs don't mention him. There are some claims that the refs back up, but I don't know if charges were ever filed. The first ref is a court decision that doesn't mention Abidi and doesn't back up the claim he is a politician. I don't know how much pruning this article needs. Bgwhite (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Bg, that was amazing. I scrapped the lot. We list convictions, not charges or allegations. I hadn't seen one this bad in a long time. Next time, don't hesitate about playing it safe and our on the side of BLP caution. Thanks again for notifying. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Chip Kidd

This entry appears autobiographical in nature of an non-significant individual. Recommend removal from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C morgan2005 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think it was written by Kidd? There's no basis for calling him "non-significant". There's clear notability.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not the greatest BLP but this report has no merit to it. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

John B. Quinn

BLP for a top-ranking laywer containing a bunch of resume-type fluff about settlements and law suits he supposedly won. But WP is not for resumes, and the sourcing involved is not up to snuff: see edits made by 67.247.0.132 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The references either do not mention the subject, or aren't from reliable sources. A good reading of the content and the sources by someone as yet uninvolved would be appreciated--I've stopped short of adding "fluff" and "COI" tags, but they might be warranted. Thanks for your attention. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Quinn is a relatively well-known lawyer in Los Angeles. The only sources for the article are a magazine piece declaring him an "influential lawyer" (hidden behind a paywall), a Wall Street Journal article about the legal jobs downturn, and the bio from his firm's website. The magazine article ain't much, as these kinds of articles are a dime a dozen. The rest is relatively uncontroversial. What's lacking in the article is any sources that establish his notability. Just being a partner, even one of the founding partners (as firms go, it hasn't been around a long time), at a prominent firm isn't enough. My guess is such sources could be found, but I'm about to get off and don't have the time to hunt them down.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Natasha Alam

This entry seems biased and perhaps written by the actress herself or solely her PR agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.107.197 (talk) 07:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The article was full of WP:COPYVIOs, so I removed them. It also contained a few bogus citations and cites to unreliable sources. I've removed those. More eyes would be appreciated in evaluating whether WP:BASIC or WP:NACTOR are actually met (per the IP's complaint), though it's not really a WP:BLPN concern. JFHJr (㊟) 14:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Katie Blampied

Katie Blampied (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - first an IP editor came into the article, then a User using the name User:Katieblampied began editing the article, mainly removing references to her husband and changing her name back to her maiden name. It's entirely possible that it really is Katie Blampied, who's going through a divorce. I asked on their Talk page if they are she, but they didn't reply. I can't find any Google news hits about her at all, that she's divorcing, or anything else for that matter, so it really should stay as it is till we get further information. Though maybe somebody can convince her to talk to us? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite concerned about this article. A year ago an editor added "Mark Blampied" as the husband's name to the infobox with the summary "Updated information" but provided no reference whatsoever to verify that they had married. With the next edit, the same editor moved the article from Katie Ritchie to Katie Blampied [23]. I cannot find a single source to verify that she was ever married to this person in the first place. But even if this were the case, she is always referred to in reports of sporting events as "Katie Ritchie". The only references to her as "Katie Blampied" are Wikipedia mirror sites. If I were the article's subject, I'd want to change the article too. Personally, I think the article should be moved back to the original name, and the information about her husband should be removed if we have no reliable sources to verify that they are married. Voceditenore (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I also left a note at User talk:Katieblampied explaining what the options are if she is concerned about the contents of this article and informing her of this discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If she isn't really going by Blampied, that might explain why I couldn't find any references to her. I do find references to Katie Ritchie, but there is a facebook page for Ritchie which copies our Wikipedia article, including the Blampied name, though it could be a hoax. It would help if the editor would explain. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not hoax as such, but it is very misleading. Facebook has taken to automatically mirroring Wikipedia articles and calls them "Community pages". More than one subject of a BLP article here has expressed dismay at what Facebook does and have likened it to identity theft. If you're referring to this Facebook page. Note that it says it's from Wikipedia and has the disclaimer "Community Pages are not affiliated with, or endorsed by, anyone associated with the topic." That's why we have to be especially careful about what goes into BLP articles on Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

And the facebook page says it's mirrored from the Katie Ritchie article, thus having been created when it was at that name before the move. We might want to move it back and take out the references to a husband. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I was the editor who added the marriage information. To be honest, I can't remember where I got the info from (a Google search only shows that she was in a relationship with Mark Blampied). Looking at some of the references in the article, I'd guess that I got it from searching a newspaper database, probably the Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre (which I no longer have access to). I've asked another editor (who has access to netball information that I don't) for help. Since it's a BLP, then for now I'd suggest that the information has to be removed and the name changed to "Katie Ritchie" until sources can be found showing otherwise. If the information was in error, I apologise. – Liveste (talk • edits) 02:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, I've found out that her name is Katie Blampied, and that she was indeed married to Mark. Now I have to find a reliable source that shows it. – Liveste (talk • edits) 03:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have moved back to Ritchie and removed refs to a husband. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's the best solution, but if a reliable source is found for the marriage, I'd recommend keeping in at its current location. She is primarily known under the surname Ritchie, and may not wish to be written about under her married name. Note also that many women now do not take their husband's surname when they marry. Unless a source can be found indicating that she self-identifies as "Katie Blampied", it should stay at "Ritchie". Voceditenore (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Lai Changxin

Even if Lai Changxing is guilty of all the unlawful activities this article alleges against him, parts of the article could be libellous of other people. There are innuendoes agains Jiang Zemin and his son, an ATV news readers and others.

The article as a whole needs to be throughly checked and where necessary re-written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.125.188 (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

David Pearce (philosopher)

The longer I looked, the more I found only primary sources in this article: the subject himself and associated organizations. There are a few trivial mentions in third-party coverage, but the article currently is not sourced by substantial coverage by a solidly reliable source. If anyone is familiar with modern British philosophers, please have at the article. Although it's survived at least two deletion proposals under previous frameworks, I suspect it would not now. Thoughts anyone? JFHJr (㊟) 14:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

pat foley

pat foley was born on12/23/1953. He also received an Emmy in2010 in the same category as before. Mary Foley (his mother) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.32.3.92 (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia can only put things in articles that are backed up by reliable sources. If you have a reliable source that says he was born on December 23, 1953 (the article said 1954), please provide it. I looked around and the only thing I could find from a medium source was that he was born in 1954 (not even the month or the year). I've removed the month and the year and stuck in the source for 1954. The article really needs more sources, so I've tagged it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Roomi S. Hayat

I would appreciate some more eyes over the Roomi S. Hayat article. It seems quite promotional in nature and relies heavily on primary sources; some of which, I do not feel, verify the content they are cited against. It's not a very long article so I won't post excerpts, but some outside opinion would be appreciated. The author is keen for the POV tag to be removed and has been receptive to making some changes, but I don't think they go far enough. Thanks in advance. Pol430 talk to me 18:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it should go to AfD (based on results of {{findsources}}); I'm tempted to do it myself, though I suspect it would be kept. You are right to say that it is heavily promotional and relies on primary sources; if you feel they don't verify the content, then go ahead and delete the content. I see that Roomihayat (talk · contribs) has been blocked -- has that user been replaced by another who would turn out to be the same person? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response, I also feel it would be kept at AFD. Samar Saeed Akhtar (talk · contribs) is the original author and was editing before Roomihayat (talk · contribs), although that account turned up pretty quickly after the article was created. Which suggests an WP:SPA and WP:COI but not necessarily the same person. I'll give it a few days and see if there is any further input here and if little has changed, I will remove some of the more dubious content. I can't see anything libelous and so no need for immediate action. Pol430 talk to me 18:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I have now gone through some of the article. Rather than removing the POV tag, I have added a primary sources tag and several in-line tags as well. That is a very crappy article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This article was created by Alpha_Quadrant (talk · contribs) via AfC (I have been giving him a hard time about this on his talkpage, but he's got friends who think he did nothing wrong...). That user is now adding *more* primary sources to the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't bash AQ for creating the article, I work at AfC too and can understand his perspective; at AfC we have to strike a balance between enforcing WP:PAG and not overwhelming or WP:BITEing new editors. The article was something of a walled garden and, I too, was unsure what to make of things, hence why I came here. Pol430 talk to me 22:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I find it disturbing that there is (as I think your message implies) regular creation of poorly sourced BLPs at AfC. Declining articles like that can be done gently -- but they surely should be declined. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Then why don't you volunteer to help us? I don't know if you've noticed, but we're burning out users over at AFC at a good rate, due to the amount of stress that is involved in the job. Just give the guy some slack and don't complain if you haven't done the job before! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Issues at Ray Nagin

I have been having a tough time with the above article recently with a recalcitrant section.

For an article that once appeared to me to be a total attack page, it's come a long way. However, one section I radically pruned for lack of biographical relevance has been summarily restored by other editors without justification. The most recent restoration is here. I feel that not only lacks relevance, but gives undue emphasis to the chapter. I wouldn't be so upset if some attempt was made to render the material somehow biographical, but I can't and nobody else seems prepared to do the necessary. I created two separate threads over a period of several months but nobody has sought to respond to my concerns except summarily reverting my edits. Comments are welcome at sections 25 and 28. Thanks, --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Nancy Mercado

Solomonmercado (talk · contribs)

Article was recently cleaned up, now reverted by an apparent COI account to a state that appears to include much cut and pasted text. Ideally it could use some decent sourcing and get away from the promotional tone, but for now a few more eyes on this, to insure that it meets guidelines and doesn't become an ownership/edit war concern, would be appreciated. 99.12.242.7 (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if someone could discern whether the article has indeed been copied from here [24], or whether that's just a mirror of the Wikipedia piece. If it's a copyright violation it appears to have existed from the article's inception, and presents a concern. Otherwise we can move on to other concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.12.242.7 (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Richard Santulli

More eyes needed here. I had stubbed this down [25] as I found the whole article to be "Dubious promotional, self-serving information added by (suspected) pr hack", the original edit comment. The majority of the refs do not appear to be RS, there is quite a lot of PRIMARY I believe, from company blurb to the Chairman's letter, as well as one ref soucing itself back to Wikipedia. I admit my original stub might have been a bit severe but I couldn't find a lot on the guy in RS at the time.

User Monstermike99 (talk · contribs) has restored all the previous material, I came across this person who had 'puffed' the Jacob Arabo article last year and decided to check out some of their other edits. Please look at their contribs, only CEOs, traders and private equity firms, but the said person took offense at being called a PR hack on my talk page (I only said suspected). I will notify them on their talk that this has been flagged at BLPN.

Experienced editors, what say ye? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 12:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear no -- definitely not an appropriate reversion, so I have re-stubbified it. If the editor is engaged in persistent puffery using sources that don't meet WP:RS, it might be a matter for ANI -- but for gods sake don't accuse them of being a paid editor: that is becoming a badge of honor around here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Good move, didn't want to start edit warring with this editor on obvious non-RS puffery. As for my edit commentary, I guess there are days when I just don't do subtlety ;-).

Other interested editors, check the user's contribs, could well need reporting to ANI. Thanks. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 13:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not occupy wall street guys, I presented legitimate sources there and relevant sources that meet Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines, but to just dismiss the whole article is not right. Especially on a bias pre-text of you not personally liking the previous subjects I contributed too. Now let's be fair and in comparison to other BLP's and look at what can stay and what is not relevant. Captain Screebo you had good edits for Jacob Arabo, I didn't question those changes. But to dismiss the whole article, yes, that might be a matter for ANI. So I will put up my contributions again, I only ask that we specify based on the guidelines of what cannot stay. As I mentioned earlier, let us compare to Eli Wallach. We can have dialogue, that's why I went to your talk board. Monstermike99 talk 10:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Dude, you were using Wikipedia articles as sources. Spend some time with WP:RS -- really, get to know it very well, particularly what a reliable "secondary source" is. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

My man, there was one, ONE, that referred to the NetJets entry. So using Wiki as sources (plural) is not true. If you have specific edits I'm OK (like the ONE Wiki), but not the whole article. I will remove that reference. Monstermike99 (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The article was not well sourced. It used a lot of primary sources and sources that failed WP:RS. It also included a lot of details tangentially related to Santulli, including some that sure came off as WP:PUFFERY. I've pruned some of the irrelevant details and some of the poorly sourced bits. I also added some maintenance tags to the article. For the most part I explained why I made each change that I made in my edit summaries. I don't have time to clean up the article completely - it could still use more eyes. Kevin (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

James Whitaker

Journalist who passed away. This biography is pretty weak. I just removed some unsourced and rather odd sounding stuff, but the whole thing could use a going over. As other journalists are likely to turn to our biography for obituaries, I'd rather us say nothing at all than to have the press repeat nonsense and blame us for it later!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added a reference for the fact that he has indeed died from BBC News, which also has more biographical information for expanding the article. On the whole, when editing an article to say that a person has recently died, it's best to include a reference for it. I normally revert all such unreferenced addtions unless a reliable source can be found and added. Mistakes can cause a lot of distress. Voceditenore (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely. In this case, I had seen from a reliable source that he had died (this is what led me to his article), so I left that in. (But didn't have time to add the source!) Thank you!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope JW is aware that "passed away" is a euphemism that is verboten as per MOS. Thank you ;-) almost-instinct 14:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Uh, ok. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I would clarify that we don't use it; if it's a direct quote or reference headline, those may still be included. Dru of Id (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Callista Gingrich - 3rd wife vs married in lead

The poll continues and is evenly poised - see Talk:Callista_Gingrich#.22Third_wife.22. I initially mentioned it here a week ago. More independent eyes the better, even if (actaully particularly if) you don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ronald J Radke

This article has appeared at WP:RM, and it was obvious that the correct name for the page should be Ronnie Radke. But according to that redirect's history, there was a DRV in 2009 (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 12) where a redirect to his band was created and then indefinitely protected. I have no idea what happened back then, but it sounds like something BLP related. Callmederek (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Bibliograhy of researchers

Where can I find a policy about making decisions to include references to scholarly articles written by notable researchers? Scientists often write many articles in their careers. It is not practical to include all of anyone's work in their article, but probably a few key papers should be included in some cases within "Further reading" or a "Bibliography" section. I tried to find a description of best practices but could not. As examples, look at Einstein#Publications or Richard_feynman#Selected_scientific_works. How many publications is enough? How many are too many? What about for much less notable scientists - I do not want any article to look like a CV or resume, but if I have 10 references for a scientist who has a small article, then that looks like a collection of links. Who has discussed this before? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Editorial judgement. I doubt this can or should be captured in a set of rules. I general included 2-9 papers in a "Selected works" section based on my knowledge of which papers where influential in the field the researcher worked in or based on citation counts. —Ruud 21:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Kennedy Mweene

Resolved

– Poster should bring repeated IP vandalism to WP:RPP. JFHJr (㊟) 01:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Zambians seem not to be able to handle success decently :-) → «« Man77 »» 23:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

While the subject of the article is indeed a living person, the edit history indicates the proper forum would be WP:RPP. Best of luck. JFHJr (㊟) 01:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The North Carolina Highway Patrol K-9 Scandal

I think some other eyes would be handy on this one. The article is about the mistreatment of a police dog by its handler. After a rather convoluted series of events, it ended up that he was fired, but then won a wrongful termination case. It is all sourced, and I guess is about the event,so it is ok. However, I'm concerned that the article as a whole feels like a BLP problem in part due to the number of people, and the North Carolina Highway Patrol misconduct in 2007 section seems to be a list of people working for the organisation who were in trouble during that year, and thus feels like a possible BLP problem. I may be off base, but I thought that if I raised it here another opinion would help. I suspect some copyvio problems as well, but they'll take a while to work through due to the nature of the article. - Bilby (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, ugh. Seems like a local news story about animal abuse that hardly merits an article here, but local news organizations eat this stuff up, so there are plenty of sources. But it's worth raising questions re: whether the whole thing belongs, per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Is any of this notable? 99.12.242.7 (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Trimmed the coatracking and moved it to The North Carolina Highway Patrol K-9 incident‎ - the guy got all his back pay after three years - it is local news - clearly COI users created it - at least its better now - WP:AFD is your the next step if you feel whats left is still a problem - regards - Youreallycan 06:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have moved it further to North Carolina Highway Patrol K-9 incident per WP:THE. – ukexpat (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes - thank you - Youreallycan 14:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm tempted to start the AFD. Any objections? Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth I'd support deletion, though I suspect its multiple sources will make it a tough candidate. 99.12.242.7 (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've also taken a swing at glaring BLP issues. I tried to pare it down to public figures (cf. public officials, officers, and nobodies), since extended discussion of commentators, names of attorneys, etc are just not important. Also, I removed lots of discussion about court filings, which never make very good sources. Anyone can allege anything; reporting doesn't make it reliable for encyclopedic content. Agree this is a steaming turd of an article, and that AfD would likely be a challenge because of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Overall, it probably contains some information about the NCHP that might belong on that page: suspension of K9 program pending investigation re animal abuse, for example. I think the officer involved is 100% non-notable, and the case got coverage, like many local court cases, for its entertainment value (note exclusively local press coverage; only 2 main sources). If it is sent to AfD, I hope the nominator will leave another post here. JFHJr (㊟) 22:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Charles R. Pellegrino

- an editor removing statement from University VC that he doesn't have a PhD & making the article claim he has one

There's a rather unpleasant debate both on the article talk page and WP:DRN (where the editor arguing about this raised the issue and then ignored everyone) about whether Pellegrino was awarded a PhD. The University has said no, but an editor insists that a page on library holdings proved he does, and has removed this section [26] and added, on the basis of a university library catalog entry at catalog entry that he does have one. I can't go into his full arguments here by they are detailed at the talk page. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The title of this section should be "Editor corrects BPL of person being falsely maligned and defamed contrary to WP policy."

1. The overriding issue in this matter is WP policy regarding BPLs, especially with respect to defamatory, malicious, injurious or other statements that may cause harm to a living individual or impugn and malign their character.

2. The BPL both implied and made direct statements asserting the subject (Dr. Charles R. Pellegrino) does not have the Phd he states he has earned from Victoria University, Wellington. this was stated in the original BPL before my corrections. It was said directly or by implication in several places in the BPL, including a special section 'Controversy>doctorate'. While some of the statements were sourced to secondary sources (news reports that quoted third sources, etc.) I found the statements and the sources upon which they were based to be misleading, inaccurate or simply false.

3 The official written record of the university (a legal document), as recorded in its thesis catalog, clearly indicates not only that a doctoral thesis (the completing step of the doctoral award) is installed at the university, but that it is an "awarded doctoral thesis". The meaning of this designation was further verified by communication with the person in charge of certifying and installing the student records at VUW (Mr. Parry's full response is sourced and quoted in Pellegrino's Talk section.) The unequivocal statement of Mr. Parry, Co-ordinator of the Research Archives Library at VUW, with respect to the catalog designations in Dr. Pellegrino's file was that, "All degrees are conferred." (the complete text of his reply are in the BPL Talk section #8).

4. 'Dougweller' pretty much indicates where the problem lies, in his opening statement above. He makes the statement that I "ignored everyone", as if that were to be some standard - a popularity contest of sorts - rather than an examination of the arguments to see which held up to scrutiny. In fact, I "ignored" no one, answering each argument at length and pointing out where I found fault with them. I did this, despite the fact that many of their arguments were specious, misstated my own comments, or were otherwise defective or irrelevant. It took time to do this, but no one was ignored (again, see all of my replies on the Talk page and judge for yourselves). 'Dougweller' asserts that the "University said no" in the matter of whether Dr. Pellegrino has a degree, suggesting that the "University" is equivalent to a statement by the VC (and through a derivative source columnist for the NYT). Vice Chancellors may say many things on behalf of a University, but in the case of student records and status, the written record itself constitutes the legal voice of a university, and even the Chancellor cannot alter that. The written record regarding student status is the offical record of the state of affairs. In most universities there are protections in place and serious consequences if an employee, even a Chancellor, say what they may, attempts to alter that record.

5. Ultimately, as I expressed throughout the related Talk sections, item #1 in this summary is, and should be, the governing instruction of resolution. That the persistence of suggesting in the BPL, in any way, that the subject did not earn a degree which they said they did, does discredit and impugn their personal and professional character. Even if I hadn't answered the arguments of the detractors, Even if my sourcing was technically flawed or otherwise judged inadequate; even if there were only a modicum of doubt cast on the credibility of news reports, the motives of other editors, the competing sources of the "official state of affairs", item 1 here, and general policy (as well as common decency) says that we are to forego such attacks and maligning of a subject. That is a governing principle I have seen said over and over, in dozens of different ways, thoughout Wikipedia. It applies in this case no less. There is simply no reason to permit that principle to be violated in Dr. Pellegrino's biography, no matter how many, or for what reason they may wish to do so. Dr. Pellegrino should be treated no different under the circumstances than any other of the hundreds of biographies I've seen on WP, which normally doesn't even source or comment on their doctorates; it simply states them as fact without qualification, normally in an 'Intro' or 'Education Section' (see the BPLs of Isaac Azimov and Carl Sagan, for example).

6. What was completely "ignored" throughout the discussions I've had on this matter were the very principles and WP policies I've mentioned here in items 1 and 5. Though I reiterated the policy of avoiding maligning, discrediting or causing personal harm to Dr. Pellegrino in a number of my replies and comments; not a single respondent mentioned the subject. Whatever else they had to say about sources, library arguments, security and records, and so forth, not a single mention was made about ending a continuing and harmful defamation of the subject by the very construction of this so-called "controversy" in the text. Not one.

7 finally, and since I do plan to take this matter to some structure within Wikipedia that has the authority to take corrective and disciplinary action regarding the behavior of some editors and/or administrators related to this affair, I would ask this noticeboard, what group or authority in WP is appropriate for lodging formal complaint?

sorry for the length, but I felt a summary would be useful - and it is not as easy to respond to charges as it is to make them, as I'm sure some of you must know. Redslider (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

And although Pellegrino doesn't claim to have a PhD, and you have no source other than a catalog record, you insist that you don't need a source in the article. Your examples are neither controversial or alive. Pellegrino is alive and the existence of a PhD for him is controversial. If you want disciplinary action taken against someone, WP:ANI is the appropriate place but please note that if you do go there your own behavior will also be scrutinised, and you've already been to WP:DRN where you got n o support. Dougweller (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Redslider wants to do original research on the basis of primary sources (a university's library catalogue) and add something that is contradicted by numerous secondary sources that meet WP:RS. To see the version describing the PhD claims and counterclaims and the associated sources, consult this version of the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry folks, the accusations of violating BLP have distracted me from the fact that this is really a question of sources and their reliability, and before we can settle whether or not all these editors being accused of violating BLP are actually doing so we need to discuss the sources, and this isn't the appropriate venue. Let's move this to WP:RSN to resolve that - I've started a discussion there. Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Librarian here. I don't think this catalog record should be taken as evidence of anything other than that he wrote a doctoral thesis called The Role of Desiccation Pressures. Catalog errors are quite alarmingly frequent and I find it difficult to imagine a cataloger would ever check graduation records or call registrars to verify a student's degree status. All they know is they got a doctoral thesis, so they put it on the shelf. The only exception to using catalog records as sources would be from archives/special collections where they do extensive research on the items they are preserving that are of historical or other value. (Some library special collections also house copies of theses, but that doesn't mean they do this kind of research.) Gamaliel (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Update: so I shouldn't have taken the TL;DR approach because there's quite a bit more to this than I assumed initially. The New York Times quotes the university as saying there is no doctorate, so there is no doctorate for our purposes, period. A catalog record can not be used to override a gold-standard secondary source getting its information from the best possible primary source. A big "doctoral degree controversy" section like this one is inappropriate, but this can be dealt with in a sentence or two and is appropriate for inclusion. Gamaliel (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I don't doubt your experiences with the matter of data entry errors. However, in the interpretation of the record in the VUW Research Archives, I directly asked the librarian in charge of processing those records if the entries (which I copied directly from Pellegrino's published record) indicated if the student had actually received their degree. Here is the part of the Talk discussion describing that communication:

the following communication from the Digital Initiatives Coordinator of Technological Services at the Wellington Library, should be helpful

In response to my question, "That is, given the follow catalog descriptors and information,

       "vuwschema.type.vuw Awarded Doctoral Thesis en_NZ
       thesis.degree.discipline Zoology en_NZ
       thesis.degree.grantor Victoria University of Wellington en_NZ
       thesis.degree.level Doctoral en_NZ
       thesis.degree.name Doctor of Philosophy en_NZ

       along with VUW publication designation, accession dates, etc.
       can one presume the student has gotten their degree?

The Co-ordinator replied with the following statement,

       In answer no Thesis is included in the Research Archive that has not already been awarded.
       All degrees are conferred. Some recent ones may be in before actual graduation, but they have
       all been passed. The process is that after a Thesis is passed the student must deposit a copy
       with the library before graduation.
       You can accept the Awarded Doctoral Thesis at face value."

       Michael Parry
       Digital Initiatives Co-ordinator
       Technology Services
       The Library
       Victoria University of Wellington
       PO Box 3438, Wellington, New Zealand"

I call your attention to Mr. Parry's statement: All degrees are conferred.

That's how it works at VUW. I think that is a rather unequivocal statement of the meaning of those entries from the person most in a position to know. I would also find it a bit of a stretch, while data entry errors do occur, that in the 30 years of records (from the copyright date of 1983 on Pellegrino's record) this particular one, and those particular descriptors were mis-entered. That's really playing the odds, yes? As for your accepting words quoted by a columnist of a VC on a phone call as more reliable than the written record itself seems less than prudent. Phd accession records as you know, are not like 3x5 cards in k-12 libraries. They are legal documents surrounded by a number of protection and compliance processes. It's like the difference between have the mortgage in your hand or the real estate broker telling you what the status of your home is, yes? That little catalog item is a record of a process, a completed process. (btw: i included the contact info on the librarian, so that anyone could also verify the same information (that is, I sourced it). Redslider (talk) 05:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:OR - this isn't a court of law. We go by sources, rather than by 'evidence' acquired through our own investigations. And an e-mailed answer by a 'Digital Initiatives Co-ordinator' to an abstract question isn't a 'legal document' in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I've copied the above two posts to WP:RSN and told Redslider to continue it there. I agree with AndyTheGrump. And it seems to me that if we want to contact the University then we contact someone who can confirm whether a PhD was actually awarded and that this would be someone outside the library. Dougweller (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hugo Schwyzer

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

Repeated insertion of libellous information about "misogyny" and abuse. (If Schwyzer even meets notability requirement, he deserves better than this hack job.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.200.240 (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a messy article about a person who invites controversy. I have a bias against these kinds of articles, so I'm not the best person to ask whether he's sufficiently notable to meet guidelines. I've done a little work improving the article and removing material that doesn't have inline citations supporting it. WebCite seems to not be working at the moment, so there are several major statements I can't verify or reject until it's working again.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If anyone wants to read this silly article to decide whether the subject (who just loves writing about every phase of his personal life) is sufficiently notable, please do so. The good news is it's a short read.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've sent it to AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 01:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

...And lo, a brother article. Philip Schwyzer might use some attention also. JFHJr (㊟) 03:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Sajeel Shahid

Previous discussion: [27]

The recent discussion was archived, but the AfD is still live, and I'd like to suggest again that editors consider the arguments there -- particularly (from my point of view) the fact that multiple incidental mentions in newspaper articles are being used to assert notability when in fact WP:BIO requires that notability for people is rooted from "significant coverage". The subject has not made a deletion request through "proper" channels, but it's clear from the various discussions that he does want it deleted (if necessary we can do AfD again once he figures out how to submit a request properly). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Asma al-Assad

This article invites a certain amount of POV editing because of issues related to Syria itself and to al-Assad's husband. Asma herself has little notability (in my view) except as Bashar's wife (I'm not suggesting she doesn't merit an article), but that doesn't stop editors from adding POV material and removing well-sourced material. Recently, there's been a rash of both, but, in particular, the addition of POV material by one IP (and probably at least one other IP who may be the same individual). I tried to obtain WP:RPP for the article, but it was declined as a content dispute (sigh). I've engaged in a dialogue with the IP, but I haven't made any headway. The IP was blocked for edit-warring, but that didn't last long enough, and they haven't broken 3RR since, at least not as one IP.

Here is the problematic material:

As pro-democracy protests broke out in Syria 2011 as part of the Arab Spring, Asma remained largely silent and out of the public, fueling speculation she had left the country. ([28]) Asma resurfaced in January 2012 at a pro-Assad rally in Damascus with her children. ([29]) While the civilian death toll mounted, particularly in her besieged home town of Homs, she would break her silence in a public letter sent by her office to the The Times of UK in which she stated "The President is the President of Syria, not a faction of Syrians, and the First Lady supports him in that role." ([30]) She was thought to have expressed support for her husband on her official website, however later it was thought that her website was hacked, and finally it was suspected that the website was a hoax. ([31])

I have complained that the material is WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. The last sentence is completely unnecessary. The part about the civilian death toll is coatrack. The inflammatory style (fueling speculation) is also unnecessary. The first part is already covered in an existing sentence.

I have suggested the following brief mention:

In February 2012, a representative for al-Assad sent an e-mail to The Times in London on her behalf. According to The Times, this is the first time al-Assad has communicated with the international media since the Syrian uprising began. The e-mail stated: "The President is the President of Syria, not a faction of Syrians, and the first lady supports him in that role". ([32])

Unfortunately, other than pushback from the IP (and I've kind of given up arguing with the IP), no other editor has commented on the Talk page.

If someone else could take a look at this, it would be appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your approach with this content. The first prose is squarely WP:UNDUE and WP:COAT; it editorializes and on its own terms repeats apparently bogus news. That said, I think her public support of the President of Syria in the context of her otherwise quiet public profile as First Lady during the crisis is probably additive to her notability (essentially deriving from her marriage). At minimum, it's content that can and should be included neutrally, accurately, and without undue weight by excessive editorializing. I've added your recommended prose to the article, since there doesn't seem to be much doubt as to the authenticity of this particular quote. JFHJr (㊟) 23:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much for helping out. And for taking the time to update the refs.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You betcha. And just to follow up, I removed another paragraph regarding media reports that were subsequently and unquestionably disproven. I did so because they present WP:UNDUE weight within the subject's personal life section, namely occupying a third of it with commentary about something that never happened. Also, I noticed this nonsense that indicates to me the article talk page isn't going to be much help as it pertains to that editor. Suggest WP:ANI. JFHJr (㊟) 02:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding a non-free image of Lukas Ridgeston?

I don't know. Should I upload a non-free image of this living person? He's still active as a model but retired as an actor; however, I don't think free images by professional photographers are easier to find nowadays, especially with today's economy and laws of copyrights worldwide. Generally, I must obey WP:NFC; nevertheless, if that fails, then I shall use WP:IAR. --George Ho (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there are more pressing problems than the lack of an image regarding this article. Lots of them... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarify "more pressing problems", please? Does it imply: is uploading a non-free image all right? --George Ho (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any policy basis for adding a non-free image to this article. It'll get deleted. And, forgive me, but using WP:IAR is absurd - no one will take you seriously.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NFC#UUI - talks about retired ... he is retired as an actor. If his appearance in a specific film is noteworthy or his appearance in films is discussed in the text then you might have a case for a non free pic depicting and supporting text in the body of the article - not in the infobox though. IAR doesn't apply to legal guidelines such as copyright policy. Youreallycan 16:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Simon R. Gladdish

Resolved

– Article deleted at AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 02:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon R. Gladdish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Has twice been prodded, both templates subsequently removed without the issues being resolved. I've had lengthy discussions with the article's author, who has admitted to conflict of interest. Subject doesn't appear to be notable, claims are not reliably sourced--this looks like a vanity article. Does anyone want to take this to AFD? Thanks, 99.12.242.7 (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed unsourced content, especially content that went over the line as far as WP:BLP, WP:PEACOCK, WP:COAT to name a few. More eyes probably needed here. I'm inclined to agree with the IP, but disinclined to nominate at this time (for no particular reason, sorry). If the IP is so inclined, please register an account and start at WP:BEFORE. JFHJr (㊟) 02:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The cleanup was much appreciated. Always better to have multiple objective eyes on a problematic bio. 99.12.242.7 (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad I could provide some help. I hope other editors here will have a look as well. I've also left a note at talk regarding the BLP cleanup and notability in general. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 03:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

After spending some time looking into the subject, I decided AfD was right for this article after all. See nomination link at the top of this section. JFHJr (㊟) 16:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Jeremy Bamber

I'm appreciate some uninvolved input to help settle a dispute about whether this article should be named after the event or the living person. Apologies for the length.

The article is about the murder in England of five family members in 1985 in White House Farm, Tolleshunt D'Arcy: two parents, their adult daughter, and her six-year-old twin sons. It became a famous case in the UK in part because of the twists and turns of the investigation. It was first handled by police as a murder-suicide by the adult daughter who had schizophrenia, but the couple's son, Jeremy Bamber, ended up being convicted; the motive was said to be a large inheritance. The murders have stayed in the public eye because Bamber, who is still in jail, says he is the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

I've been working on the article slowly since 2010, with a view to bringing it to FAC, and it has increasingly felt inappropriate to title it as though it were a biography. Best practice is to use the event name. In this case, the name several reliable sources have used (e.g. book and film titles) is the White House Farm murders, which is currently a redirect.

Analagous articles would be 2010 Northumbria Police manhunt, not Raoul Moat (redirect only); Murder of Joanna Yeates, not Vincent Tabak (redirect only); Soham murders, not Ian Huntley (redirect only); Hungerford massacre, not Michael Ryan (redirect only); Dunblane school massacre, not Thomas Hamilton (dab only); Cumbria shootings, not Derrick Bird (redirect only). Where the person is deemed notable enough, a separate biography may be created, per WP:BLP1E. For example, 2011 Tucson shooting and Jared Lee Loughner, or Murder of Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox.

I've suggested on talk that we either have one article about the murders called White House Farm murders, or that we split it into a murders article and a biography. Splitting it would have the added benefit of shortening the murders article, which is currently too long but still has details missing.

This is being resisted by two editors (Exok and Nick Cooper) who have cited various reasons (see Talk:Jeremy Bamber#Requested_move), including that not calling the murder article after Bamber would look like part of the campaign to secure his release, and that the title "White House Farm murders" is not in common-enough currency.

The first point I reject entirely. As for the second, a number of high-quality reliable sources have used "White House Farm murders," including a 2001 Times editorial ("The White House Farm murders became one of the most infamous criminal cases of the past 20 years ..."); a 1993 Yorkshire Television film, The White House Farm Murders; a 1998 paper in Police Review "Detective's Casebook: The investigation into the White House Farm murders of 1985; a scholarly paper; and several book titles (e.g. The White House Farm Murders (1990). More examples below:

Extended content

Scholarly

D'Cruze, Shani; Walklate, Sandra L.; and Pegg, Samantha. "The White House Farm murders", in Murder: Social and Historical Approaches to Understanding Murder and Murderers. Willan, 2006.

Shani D'Cruze is Reader in Gender and Women's History at Manchester Metropolitan University; Sandra Walklate is Eleanor Rathbone Chair of Sociology at the University of Liverpool; and Samantha Pegg is a lecturer at Nottingham Law School.

Police

Plimmer, John. "Detective's Casebook: The investigation into the White House Farm murders of 1985," Police Review, 2 January 1998.

John Plimmer is a retired detective with West Midlands police.

Film

Yorkshire Television. The White House Farm Murders, 1993.

Book titles

Murder Casebook. The White House Farm Murders. Marshall Cavendish, 1990.
Wilkes, Roger. Blood Relations: Jeremy Bamber and the White House Farm Murders. Penguin, 1994.
Powell, Claire. Murder at White House Farm: Story of Jeremy Bamber. Headline Book Publishing, 1994.
Whittington-Egan, Richard. "The White House Farm Massacre," in Murder on File: The World's Most Notorious Killers. Neil Wilson Publishing Ltd, 2006.

Examples of newspapers

Times editorial. "Murder most foul, but did he do it?", 18 March 2001.

"The White House Farm murders became one of the most infamous criminal cases of the past 20 years ..."

The Observer. "Jeremy Bamber did not murder his family, insists court expert" , 21 February 2010:

"Analysis of police negatives ... has found them incompatible with the principal prosecution case used to imprison Bamber for the White House Farm murders 25 years ago".

Daily Mirror. "Evidence that convicted Jeremy Bamber of shooting his family in 1985 White House Farm murders now under review", 22 February 2010.

Daily Express. "Jeremy Bamber will be 'free this year'", 22 February 2010.

"... we may be witnessing the final chapter in the gruesome case of The White House Farm murders."

The Guardian. "Gun experts raise doubts over Jeremy Bamber murder verdict", 4 February 2012.

Detailed reports ... corroborate the initial police view that Bamber's schizophrenic sister Sheila Caffell committed the White House Farm murders in 1985."

Any opinions from uninvolved editors that might help to settle this would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Slim. You say two editors are resisting a move. You're discounting the other oppose votes on the article's talk page? Exok (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

So far, three of us (Rothorpe, 70.24.247.54, and myself) agree to splitting the article in two; you and Nick oppose that; and one editor (BabbaQ) commented once against a move, but hasn't commented again on the split option. So yes, it's you and Nick that have resisted both proposals. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Split and rename Slim's proposal seems perfectly reasonable given the precedent set by other notorious massacres et al. where the perpetrators' names are indeed redirects. Just wiki'd Ian Brady, first that came to mind, which is a redirect to The Moors Murders, which backs up the point Slim is making. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The comparison with The Moors Murders doesn't really work since the aftermath of the original crime was not nearly so dominated by the actions and assertions of the perpetrators. Over half the current article describes Bamber's campaign to clear his name. Slim sees this content as fitting into the crime article, rather than the biography. It seems odd to have an article titled to a single event that covers over 25 years of ongoing - and often dramatic - developments not determined by the event but by a single person, Bamber. Exok (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Each article would summarize the other summary-style. The new evidence (as seen from the Bamber defence team perspective) must be placed in the murders article, because it questions the original investigation, and is being taken seriously by the high-quality press. But some of the other campaign material could go into the biography alone. It's hard to say in advance exactly what would fit where. It would have to be written up first to see what made most sense. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It's also worth pointing out - despite Slim's rather disingenuous account of the debate on the article's talk page - that Jeremy Bamber case was proposed as a title that would solve the problem a move is supposed to solve without resorting to a title - "White House Farm murders" - that doesn't really describe the article's contents or have much resonance for general readers. Slim rejects this out of hand. Exok (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've offered sources above for the name, so there is no reason to invent one. I'd appreciate it if you would not make any more personal attacks. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This is covered by WP:CRIME. Although it may allow some subjectivity, Bamber should only get a biographical article if his crime is a "well-documented historic event", which I don't think it is. --FormerIP (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The murder article is getting long, and is likely to get longer. WP:CRIME makes provision for splitting off a biography sub-article where there is a length issue. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but you're in the wrong starting place. If the article had started as "Bamber Murders" or whatever, then maybe now we would be looking at spinning off "Appeals cases of Jeremy Bamber" or whatever. I think what should be done now is firstly to recast the article so it is not a bio, then look at what the most sensible thing to spin off is. --FormerIP (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The article isn't a biography; it just has the wrong title. I tried to rewrite the first sentence to make clearer that it was not a biography [33] (by not starting the article with his name), but I was reverted, so the current first sentence is a compromise. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

By biography, I just mean an article that has a person's name as the title and starts "so and so is...". Change those two things and quite probably it is no longer a bio. --FormerIP (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

FormerIP's idea of having a - let's say - "White House Farm Murders" article ending with Bamber's conviction and then spinning off the appeals seems quite a strong one to me. Exok (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're suggesting removing from the main article the evidence Bamber's lawyers have gathered in his defence, and placing it elsewhere, that would make the sub-article a POV fork. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It would not be a fork based on POV, it would be a chronological break based on separate events. The appeals section would include material both favourable to Bamber's claims of innocence (new evidence) and counter to them (appeal judgement etc). It would not represent guilty or innocent views, but simple historical developments over time. This division would make far more sense than crime and biography. Exok (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be POV because it would leave in the main article the old evidence that saw him convicted, and would move into a sub-article the new evidence that challenges the old. That's the very definition of a POV fork. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Bamber's defence would appear in the first article. The (current) rejection of Bamber's various appeals and applications would appear in the second. The only POV reflected in putting events into their chronological order is the perspective of unfolding history. Exok (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As you know, the new evidence has only been developed in the last few years, so that has to be included in the main article, per NPOV. And it was developed during the appeals process, so the appeals can't be cut off. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that WP:NPOV states that where perspectives are challenged over time everything needs to be described at once. A more chronological unfolding of events would remove the need for the confusing digressions that repeatedly sidetrack the current article. Exok (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Split and rename per SlimVirgin's proposed move. Unlike SV, Exok isn't arguing from the evidence and from what it points to, but from his own interpretation of the evidence, and that's the kind of thing we want to avoid. SlimVirgin has provided more than enough evidence in favor of her proposal, and frankly, the opposition to her proposal doesn't make any sense. Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can reasonably make that claim without considering the counter evidence that has been presented to SV's assertions. SV claimed that "White House Farm murders" is a common term, and has managed to identify two articles, one TV dramatisation, one book, and one magazine which use the phrase in their titles, and five newspaper reports that also use it.

In contrast, there are four books, two magazines, and three TV documentaries that do not use the phrase in their titles. Most of these were identified before SV wrote her "evidence" list above, but which she evidently chose to ignore and not include. In addition, there are over five hundred printed newspaper and BBC website reports of the case, only ten (10) of which use the phrase "White House Farm murders" and most of these are merely references to either the book or TV dramatisation which include it in their titles.

Furthermore, four books, two magazines, and three TV documentaries use Jeremy Bamber's name in their titles; in four instances the title consists of his name and nothing else. In the UK the case is known overwhelmingly by Bamber's name, and demonstrably not the phrase "White House Farm murders" which in fact is only used by a tiny minority of sources. The news media in particular hardly ever uses it, and the BBC has never done so. This is not an "interpretation" of the evidence - it is what the evidence clearly and unequivocably shows.

Considering that Jeremy Bamber's name is by far the most widely recognised reference point to the original deaths, and that the page deals with his conviction and subsequent multiple appeals against that conviction, Jeremy Bamber case is the most logical name for the page, and a form already used in other instances (e.g. Sara Thornton case, Derek Bentley case, Stratton Brothers case, etc.). Nick Cooper (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Break

Thanks everyone for the input. I'm hoping we have enough consensus now for an article split (Rothorpe, 70.24.247.54, and myself on talk; Captain Screebo and Viriditas here) into White House Farm murders for the murders, and Jeremy Bamber for the biography. But if anyone else would like to add an uninvolved opinion here, that would still be very helpful. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I've started to work here on the biography article. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Captain Screebo and Viriditas seemed to have made their decisions based solely on the skewed and cherry-picked "evidence" you presented. You made your own argument, and barely paid lip service to the mass of material that contradicts is, which is hardly a level playing field. You also ignored my requests for you to explain exactly which parts of the current page you think should properly reside on the separate pages you prose, i.e. the "biography" and the page using the name by which the event is clearly generally not known in the UK. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm hoping for uninvolved input, Nick. Here is a selection of sources calling it the "White House Farm murders" from 1990-2012, including academic, police, film, books, some newspaper articles, and a Times editorial. That's sufficient to establish it as a title that has currency. And it makes sense to make the split, because the current article is too long. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree with Slim again, I'm afraid Nick. First of all, what you say about myself and Viriditas is WP:OR and your (skewed) POV, I am totally uninvolved but after considering the precedents concerning the naming of crime-related articles and do the perpetrators get their own article, I concluded that SV's proposal was perfectly reasonable and more respectful of WP:BLP. As you may have heard, Wikipedia is about consensus and not just obstinately pushing for what one has decided is "the right solution". CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find it hard to believe that a fair discussion can result when it it predicated on cherry-picked evidence. If the numbers supported SV's initial move proposal, I would have happily accepted and supported it, but they demonstrably do not. Nick Cooper (talk)

SV, no, you identified five instances of "White House Farm murders" appearing in titles (one book, one TV dramatisation, one magazine, and two articles), and five newspaper articles using the phrase. In contrast, it does not appear in nine book, programme or magazine titles, and over 500 print newspaper or BBC website articles do not use it, either. In fact, out of 67 reports, the BBC never uses it once. The "currency" of the phrase is clearly minute when taking account of the coverage of the event as a whole, especially in 2% of news reports (i.e. where we would expect to see a commonly recognised phrase established and used).

I would note that when you first canvassed for a move to White House Farm murders, the only support you had was from 70.24.247.54 - before any counter-evidence was posted - whereas four editors opposed it (i.e. Exok, BabbaQ, Rothorpe, and myself), all on the grounds that "White House Farm muders" is not a commonly-recognised or used term for the events in question.

You then shifted the goalposts by picking up 70.24.247.54's suggestion to split, which would by definition "force" one page to be named as you wanted all along, in the process presenting here only the evidence that furthered your case, and ignoring everything else contradicting it that had been previously identified, and of which you can't have failed to be aware. Shortly after your split proposal (less than a hour), Darkness Shines also objected to the move proposal.

In summary:

Supporting move:

SlimVirgin
70.24.247.54

Opposing move:

Exok
BabbaQ
Nick Cooper
Rothorpe
Darkness Shines

Supporting split:

70.24.247.54
SlimVirgin
Rothorpe
Captain Screebo
Viriditas

Opposing split:

Exok
Nick Cooper

I do not believe this represents the consensus you claim exists, not least because you shifted from move to split too quickly, but apparently only when it was clear that the move was not supported. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You left out a name above. There are five editors who support splitting the article into a murders article and a bio: Rothorpe, 70.24.247.54, Captain Screebo, Viriditas, and myself. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right - a genuine oversight while trying to make sense of who supported what across the two pages. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Split and rename - I would definitly support two articles one on the event and one on Jeremy Bamber himself.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, BabbaQ. I think we have sufficient consensus now for the split. I'm thinking the best way to do it is to move Jeremy Bamber to White House Farm murders (to preserve the edit history), then move User:SlimVirgin/JB (the new draft bio) to Jeremy Bamber. I'll ask an uninvolved RM admin to oversee it. Many thanks to everyone who commented. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Exok objects to the closure of the discussion, and has requested that I make a formal proposal to split the articles on the talk page. I'm very sorry to ask this, but if anyone who commented here could offer their opinion at Talk:Jeremy_Bamber#Proposal_to_split_this_article_into_a_murders_article_and_a_biography, that would be much appreciated. (Also, for some reason, that link isn't going directly to the subsection, so please scroll up a little to find it.) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Pollington

Resolved

– Unsourced BLP content removed. JFHJr (㊟) 19:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just come across an article called Stephen Pollington. As I normally contribute to articles of very long dead people, I am not sure whether this article meets the requirements of WP:BLP. My concern is that the edit history has only two editors who have contributed text to the article and the most recent one of those was with an account that was only used to edit this article and has not been used again.

So I think it would be a good idea if someone with experience of editing BLP articles, were to look over the text and references and bring it up to the usual BLP standards. -- PBS (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the article is it reads like a resume - and redundant because the prose has a list of his works, and there is a separate table with a list of his works. Interspersed in the prose is poorly written material that is largely unsourced. I don't like the structure of the article, but at this point all I've done is remove the unsourced material that is more than, for example, just a short description of a book.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced content and left a note on the talk page, along with a findsources template to facilitate future improvement. Google scholar hits indicate to me the subject probably ekes out notability as a writer and academic, with modest citations that seem relatively strong given his specialized field. In skimming, I've seen at least one instance where he's called an expert. The prose here never really indicated this scholar's importance, and that's something that an interested editor can take on. JFHJr (㊟) 19:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Tim Bishop

The Controversies section of the Tim Bishop article is sourced to some very iffy sources, including YouTube videos posted by YouTube anons who make claims that are not backed up by any other sources. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you removed the material in question? I don't see discussion on the talk page -- I suggest simply removing anything not sourced properly, discuss on talk if it's restored, and then return here if there are still difficulties. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I haven't, it's been going through some rather regular spates of removal and reversals, although to be honest, I was doing some of the reversals. Yeah, I think I'll remove some of the iffier accusations. Not only unreliable sources, but probably no DUE WEIGHT. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed cites to youtube. Third party coverage by reliable sources is required to base the assertions they supported, as well as establish the noteworthiness of the statements in question. In at least one another cite was already there, and the youtube cite wasn't particularly helpful. JFHJr (㊟) 19:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

S. E. Cupp

Could an uninvolved editor please look at recent edits to this article? Philomab (talk · contribs) has been disputing claims regarding her academic credentials. Kelly ^hi! 23:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I think your resolution of the issue was fine per the NYT. I did, however, remove the self-published source in "support" of the material, leaving just the NYT. We shouldn't be citing to self-published sources generally, and particularly not for this material, as it's somewhat self-serving and creates a bit of a conflict with the NYT, which is the better and no doubt more accurate source.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Help Creating RFC to review WP Guidelines/policy on BLP with respect to material that may harm/malign individuals

I was not sure where/how to open an rfc on the subject of WP guidelines and policies re material that may injure or defame the subject.

I've been involved in a lengthy disputed involving these matters. Through that experience I've come to the conclusion that the current WP BLP, RS, and other policies (this issue cuts across a lot of lines) are inadequate to prevent unwarranted harm to subjects through their BLPs. In some cases, things like RS policies may actually abet doing unwarranted and unjustified harm.

So, I thought it might be useful to open a general RFC on the subject and see what people think/have to say. My goal would be to actually move towards changing policies as needed, if the discussion seemed to indicate that would be good.

I went to RFC pages to open a new one, but saw they were all divided into unrelated 'subject area' and I saw none related to WP itself or general discussions on WP policy. Perhaps someone here could point me in the right direction? I'm relatively new to WP, and apologize if this is the wrong place to ask. - thank you.

note - I am not here to argue any specific dispute. Redslider (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course you are. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Editors wondering what this is really about should visit Talk:Charles R. Pellegrino. Gamaliel (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Karen Freeman-Wilson

Concern that most recent series of edits run afoul of WP:NPOV, WP:RELIABLE and WP:UNDUE. Discussion begun on article talk page [34]. Other opinions appreciated as to whether the edits constitute a BLP violation, and ought to be removed. 99.12.242.7 (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Gibril Wilson

Resolved

– Vandalism reverted. JFHJr (㊟) 23:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The beginning of the page has a reference to Gibril being a baller. Then, in his Miami Dolphins section, the phrasing (ineptness, etc.) is less than unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.214.19 (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Good catch. Vandalism and WP:BLP violations reverted. 99.12.242.7 (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Darcy Burner

The biography Darcy Burner seems almost entirely aimed at an otherwise fully non-notable losing candidate for Congress. IIRC, losing in a Congressional race does not make one notable, and this is mainly a "campaign ad". I do not put stuff up for AfD, and think input from others would make sense here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I've reworked the article some. I removed the assertions about the 2012 election as unsourced, dramatically reduced the Views section, which was self-serving, and supported only by her website, and made a few less dramatic changes. As for notability, as a non-officeholder, the article has to be judged by the usual WP:GNG (see WP:POLITICIAN). My guess is she's received signficant enough press coverage, particularly in Washington, but I haven't looked at all the sources to see the level of he coverage.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Another editor has (nicely) reinserted the 2012 material with a source. He also made a few other improvements to the article. Given her current and past campaigns, she's not going to fail notability guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality

At the Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality article, there are two sections that are very problematic: Comments about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and 2012 presidential primary election campaign. Those two incidents are completely unrelated to the 2003 controversial comments that the article is about. They were made in the context of his 2012 presidential campaign, and the sections were moved there. However, several editors insist, without much discussion or attempts to achieve consensus, that the sections must remain at the Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality article. This is a blatant violation of WP:BLP, specifically WP:COATRACK. The article cannot be turned into a dumping ground for everything Santorum has ever said about homosexuality that gets objected to. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

As has been explained to you, the scope of the article is "Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality", not "2003 Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality". The controversy is ongoing, and includes his recent comments. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Explain to me how one can have a rolling, perpetual controversy surrounding them about a specific topic. Can I create an Obama controversy regarding abortion article with his vote against a born alive infants protection bill as the framework, then dump in everything he's said and done that the pro-life lobby objects to? NYyankees51 (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum is mainly famous outside the US for his views on homosexuality; Obama is famous for being President. Bad comparison. As for the other bits on DADT - well, they give context. They should be rewritten to fit into the article better, but seem ok. BLP is hardly a big issue here: he said the remarks, and he's a well-known public figure who can take the flak.Malick78 (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see evidence that Santorum has any significant 'fame' outside the US. As one of the potential Republican candidates for the next presidential election, he's had a certain amount of media attention, and I dare say his views on homosexuality may have been commented on as something to set him apart from the other candidates, but this may well be the result of the difficulty for outsiders in actually distinguishing between the candidates at all. An assertion that Santorum's views are seen as significant anywhere but the US needs evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Cite for the "mainly famous" comment? And, by the way, BLP is always a "big issue here." Collect (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't the time to find cites for the "mainly famous" bit, that's just my view as a European. As for the BLP thing - here policy suggests we should be more careful with "People who are relatively unknown", whereas there is no caveat with public figures. Hence, we don't have to worry as much with Santorum - the info is factually correct and seems relevant.Malick78 (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Collin Raye

Resolved

– BLP material sourced. JFHJr (㊟) 23:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

We had a meet and greet with Mr. Collin Raye last night in Monroe, Michigan. We asked him about his birth date and he laughed. He was born in 1960 and said a fan put together a book that had misiformation, including his birth year. He also said his middle name is Elliot. The idea of calling him Collin came from the music company and had no previous ties to him at all. As a matter of fact, he gave the company a list of names he preferred and they rejected them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teachermom97 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving a note. I found some cites to support the changes you made, but keep in mind your account is not a reliable source. If you decide to make changes to living persons' bios in the future, I hope you'll consider running a quick search for reliable sources yourself. You can make a web URL into a reference quickly by adding: <ref>[httq://whatever.html Your Title Here]</ref>. Happy editing! JFHJr (㊟) 23:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Igor Witkowski

The reason that this person is notable is, as stated in the article, "In The Truth About The Wunderwaffe (2003), originally published in Polish as Prawda o Wunderwaffe (2000), Witkowski claims to have discovered the existence of [a] German secret project ..." The problem is that the only sources given to the article at all come from the subject's own web site and a whois record. I looked at his name quickly thru an indexer, and didn't see any biographical articles, only some references to his publications. I thought perhaps some more experienced eyes than mine should consider what can or should be done with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkotc (talk • contribs) 20:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, he's actually notable for having been an editor of a magazine and having written many books - though someone should check how many of these have been self-published. Having said that, the article is badly in need of outside, third party source (I'm not that familiar with him, but apparently some of his ideas are a bit kooky, UFOs etc.). Lacking those, I'd favor deletion since it's a BLP.VolunteerMarek 22:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, look at the related article Die Glocke. Maybe the biography could be merged there. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Quotations required?

There's a claim at Talk:List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Quotations that (what I consider) the very lengthy quotations in List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming are required to satisfy BLP, and that they may not be removed because of the policy. Is this true? 86.** IP (talk) 05:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Louise Milligan

Nominate for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.98.139.3 (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

A little analysis of why might have been helpful, but I do agree with your, uh, recommendation.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Shea Smith

Resolved

– No BLP issue. Referred to AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 01:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NGRIDIRON Subject does not display level of expertise in field that would warrant an article (i.e. playing in the NFL or a similar level)

WP:YOURSELF Strongly suspect article was written by subject. Personal information was included that has no bearing on article (i.e. wife is a "renowned baker" and "aspiring lawyer," how nice...) Article content is unduly self serving.

Recommend for deletion because of insignificant level of importance of subject and because the article has very little substantive information on subject's lasting contributions to chosen field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.117.136 (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't where you ask for deletion. You can do that by following the guide at WP:BEFORE. Happy editing! JFHJr (㊟) 01:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Adam Kokesh

The bio claims the subject "is Jewish." The linked reference is to a newspaper article on his political candidacy in which the subject claims he is Jewish in response to support from white nationalist website Stormfront which, given that context, makes the claim questionable. Should there be a NPOV source for this info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Observation Station (talk • contribs) 10:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the source is POV just because there's a discussion about a controversial website in the article. However, I don't think it's clear that Kokesh said he was Jewish - only the newspaper article said so. I've removed the Jewish material from the WP article for a couple of reasons. I removed it from the lead because it's not mentioned in the body (WP:LEAD). If it were to be mentioned in the body, it should be given some context; otherwise, it's a gratuitous reference. I've removed it from the categories per WP:BLPCAT.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I felt the statement looked out of place in the lead but I am still learning Wiki policy so thought I'd ask before taking any action.Observation Station (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Greek affiliation

A new user, Easimmons, has been adding, to a large number of BLP articles (over 30 today, if my quick estimate is correct), the fact that each article's subject was a member of the Delta Tau Delta fraternity. It appears that the facts are being referenced to what I assume is the fraternity's newsletter, so these aren't unsourced facts. Since the rate of editing was so high, I asked Easimmons to pause for a bit while I checked to see what others thought. My concern is that this information might cross over into WP:UNDUE territory (which, I know is an NPOV issue, but this seemed like a better noticeboard to start). Note that this is not anything specific about the fraternity--merely the fact that information about a college club is being added to such a large number of articles so quickly. Am I overreacting? Or should the information only be included if its somehow relevant to the rest of the person's story? I haven't reverted any of the edits, because it's certainly not harmful, but I figured that it's better to have Easimmons pause to get some input from others. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Tavo Hellmund

I do not want to continue an edit war, so i came here. Being fairly new here, please redirect me if i came to the wrong place (and accept my apology for wasting your time)!

Tavo Hellmund's lawyer and marketing team continue to attack Red McCombs and Bobby Epstein as opposed to focus on what Tavo Hellmund has done. What little he has done is bolstered by press releases Tavo has sent out as opposed to published articles. Spyder_Monkey attempted to clean this up but RacingFan74 is the new entrant adding POV and vandalism to this entry.

The ClueBot_NG reversed some of the vandalism only to be undone by RacingFan74.

Please let me know what other avenue (besides an edit war) i have to make sure factual, non-POV nor vandalism is added to Tavo Hellmund's entry. Thank you! (Posted by ScottSanders12)

Although it's not easy to follow, it's clear that the article has become something other than a biography of Hellmund and more about the current brouhaha between him and others about the construction of a new track. Fixing the article so it doesn't crumble under the weight of the ongoing controversy would take a bit of time, but I don't understand your interest. What do Hellmund's lawyer and marketing team have to do with anything? If you have specific objections to the Wikipedia content, tell us (1) the content that you object to (quoting it would be good) and (2) why it's objectionable. Simplistically put (there are lots of wrinkles I'm omitting), Wikipedia accepts relevant material supported by reliable sources. Any off-Wiki issue you may have is probably not germane.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ben Cardin

User Cleanelephant is posting poorly sourced and libelous information to Senator Ben Cardin's page. I removed the edits once, he put them back in and I have just reverted the page back to when I removed them. diff page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibsavage (talk • contribs) 04:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of the material can be legitimately included, but there are too many problems with a negative tone (references to "Obamacare", etc.), too many blogs, too much UNDUE. A serious rewrite is needed before this stuff should be included. Gamaliel (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Operation Osmin

Resolved

– BLP issues adressed, copyvios removed CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This article about an obscure cable TV fitness show seems to have been "written" by transcribing publicity handouts and press release crap. It includes assertions that Osmin was discharged from the Cuban military as insane! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, well incredible that it survived the AfD, out of interest, one of the (Spanish) links used to support the keep is dead and I'm not sure if digitalspy.co.uk can be considered an RS. Anyways, I went and pruned the lead down to something a bit more palatable and wikilike (I hope), adding the refs and removing all the prurient stuff about insanity and masturbation (cause and effect or is it the other way round ;-p). Other editors, give it a look over, cheers. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Wong (singer)

Resolved

– BLP vio removed. JFHJr (㊟) 22:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There is an entry about his sexuality, but I don't know if I shall remove it because... I don't know what to say, except there should be reports that he or anyone else deny these "rumors". --George Ho (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the section. We don't report sexual orientation rumors, and the sentence about an allusion to him is low quality and unreliably sourced by what appears to be an opinion piece on coming out.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Florinda Donner

Resolved

– Article has been stubbed and is already being expanded based on reliable sources. Yworo (talk) 17:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

This biographical article relies heavily on apparently self-published material on SustainedAction.org. However, the material being cited is written by Corey Donovan, who does not appear to be an otherwise published expert on the topic and appears to own or co-own the site (all the email addresses for owner, admin and tech in the domain registration appear to belong to Donovan). While the subject has disappeared, she is still presumed living, so the expert exception would not apply anyway.

I believe this article should be stubbed to whatever can be supported by reliable sources, but would like further input before doing so. Yworo (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Stubbing sounds like a good idea -- something can then be rebuilt from scratch, so that there is normal prose instead of that awful chronology. I don't get the sense that any of it is negative/untrue, but it's certainly a biography that needs improvement. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've stubbed it, leaving only the info verified by Salon plus some tiny claims about what her occupation was. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

David Benowitz

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

The subject is not really a person of public interest, other than having represented Marv Albert in some sex-related charges and appearing on cable news. The article appears self-serving, and appears to be created, written, and edited by only one individual. Other articles have been altered to link to this article, inflating its importance. Basically - the article appears to be basically nothing more than free advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.217.122 (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I edited the article for WP:BLP problems. Just FYI, this is not where to nominate for deletion. Nominations for deletion are covered at WP:BEFORE. Having said that, I essentially agree with you regarding notability, and have nominated myself. If you decide to participate or nominate in the future, feel free to register an account. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 22:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Marco Rubio

An editor has added a section entitled "Univision controversy". It's a juicy little scandal (drugs, blackmail, and politics) from last year. I don't know if anyone ever tried to add similar material before this (when it was more timely). I'm too tired to decide how much of it, if any, is relevant to the Rubio article and, if it is, how to reword it to avoid WP:UNDUE. It'd be nice to hear what others think about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it crosses a line. It is indeed quite juicy -- I suspect we'll get a lot of people trying to keep it in there -- but I don't think it belongs in the main bio. (It might work better in an article on a campaign, i.e., if he were currently running for office.) A key point is that it's not something he did, it's something that was done to him (if at all). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It is all surmise and synthesis by an opinion source - and while it might be apropos for Univision, BLPs have standards which it crosses. Or, as I called it on Jimbo's UT page a few times "Silly Season" political editos. Collect (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Peter Gleick

Eyes are needed on the Peter Gleick article. He has admitted that after Heartland Institute documents were sent to him anonymously, he verified them by obtaining copies from Heartland using "someone else's name".[35] Peter Revkin has called this as deception,[36] as unethical, and a Forbes headline even called it theft.[37] But what we have in the article (and on various talk pages) is editors turning that into accusations of fraud.

Seems like rather a leap to go from deception (unethical, perhaps, but not a crime) to fraud (a criminal offence). Guettarda (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Also Pacific Institute, The Heartland Institute. Guettarda (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, we have the NY Times referring to this as deception that leaves the subject's reputation in ruins. We have Forbes referring to it as theft by deception. But we probably shouldn't call it fraud (which is theft by deception) until that exact word is used in a RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Even one RS might not be enough, and in any case we would probably need to quote/attribute rather than have Wikipedia calling it a fraud. I see someone on the article talk page seems to be suggesting that the definition of fraud means we can use the word. My reply was that anyone wanting to use it should discuss it here first. Dougweller (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the editor in question has been edit-warring over this in several articles - we also need to watch DeSmogBlog - the editor is a WP:SPA with an account created 3 days ago. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)