Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive166

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

Kent Whealy

Someone is once again trying to harm Kent Whealy via Wikipedia. They are insisting that the dollar amount of his donation to the yes on 37 campaign be posted here. Donations should be public information and this is recorded in the appropriate places. As I have said repeatedly, a posting here amplifies the public awareness of this gift exponentially,and exponentially increases his and his families exposure to the opportunists who frequent these pages. This was a one time gift, a news item whose time has passed. Mr Whealy's enduring contribution to our world is his work with Seed Savers Exchange, not his political contributions. Mr Whealy's family views this as a thoroughly unnecessary intrusion into their privacy and safety. Can you help?Treastor (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Your first step is to open a discussion at the article talk page - which you haven't yet done. The information, as far as I can see, is public domain, published in a reliable source and you don't appear to challenge its accuracy, so I'm not sure if there is a ground on which it should be removed. But you should take it up on the article talk page. DeCausa (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I've offered this new user assistance, if they need it, by leaving them a note on their talk page. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news agency. We record all important impact that is verifiable in reliable third party sources about the subject. And as an encyclopedic and historical overview of Whealy, his participation as the largest contributor to an important political campaign is and will be continually important for readers in understanding who Whealy is and what impacts he has had and made - and is not stale news that should be whitewashed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you should go a bit easier on this user. They clearly don't know much about how WP works and what it's all about. The user got a barrage on his/her Talk page, but not even a {{welcomeg}} (which I've now done). DeCausa (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Does receiving a MacArthur Fellowship award automatically derive notability? Because, if not, I'm tempted to AFD this article for lack of sufficient notability. Ditch ∝ 23:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Treastor continues to remove the amount of the donation, saying that he is acting at the family's request. Xhe says this is for privacy and safety reasons and says I am aiding and abetting unethical people attacking the family. Dougweller (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Everyone except Treastor seems to understand that political donations of this sort aren't private information, especially when reliably reported in news. Treastor's characterization of the entire issue is hyperbolic, and there are no privacy or safety issues at hand; at least none have actually been spelled out. Perhaps superpacs would be a better choice for donors wishing to remain anonymous. At any rate, it's a clear conflict of interest and Treastor's editing there, outside the talk page, should cease. As to notability, I think Ditch's concerns are quite valid. This individual appears to have no separate basis for notability. Even his donation is apparently significant because of his company (note each donation in that news report is paired with a corporation). JFHJr (㊟) 13:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

as winner of the MacArthur genius, he satisfies WP:ANYBIO #1 quite handily. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A revised draft profile which addresses many of the concerns raised is posted for comment on the Kent Whealy talk page, if you are interested please view and comment so this topic can be closed. Thank you.CinagroErunam (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"Profile"? Wikipedia doesn't have profiles, it has articles...--ukexpat (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC) Apologies, "article" CinagroErunam (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

carrot top

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

A number of ridiculous edits from the beginning such as:

s mother Wendy Wu found out about that shiz & raised hell with Jacklyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.139.254 (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Next time, please revert vandalism yourself. It would have taken you the same number of edits — one — as writing on this noticeboard, but taken less typing (as you'd only had to have written an edit summary) and saved time and effort all around. Be bold! Uncle G (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Uncle G. Thank you for fixing this problem. However, please don't talk to our BLPN newcomers like that, as they are only complaining about what they see, and in fact we usually advise them not to edit articles on which they might have a conflict of interest. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  - Don't be daft, and go and read Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Be bold if you really believe that for this situation and aren't just being silly on a noticeboard for kicks. Uncle G (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    - I'll take that to indicate that you've read my comment, regardless of whether you understood it or not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  - Uncle G, the above responses to both the OP and Demiurge are out of line. Show don't tell. Ditch ∝ 04:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    - You don't be daft, too. Demiurge1000 is not a newcomer by any stretch of the definition. Like Demiurge1000, you too haven't looked at what's in front of you before leaping in saying something silly. And make no mistake, what Demiurge1000 said above is downright silly, and is not what we say to people about reverting ordinary vandalism. I pointed Demiurge1000 to what we actually do say, although xe clearly (as you can see above) wants to keep on being silly on a noticeboard rather than familiarize xyrself with what we tell people to do with vandalism when they see it. You should go and read it too. Uncle G (talk) 09:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
      - Your original comment wasn't to Demiurge1000, though, and there's no reason to be offensive. So, let's take our own advice. 72.128.201.4 (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Lauren Hoffman

BLP has only one 'source': musician's own website. looks non-notable band-spam. lately seeing anon IPs trying to spread it to other articles ('notable' people section of the charlottesville virginia article for example).Cramyourspam (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Article is now at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Hoffman) as are the two albums mentioned therein.--ukexpat (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Flavio Briatore

New user Shadow003 (talk · contribs) requested semi-protection at RFPP saying:

"The previous text has been modified because it contained false and slanderous information, and it has been formally contested by Mr Briatore’s lawyer with a letter of formal notice to the Wikimedia foundation. We kindly ask protection of this new text, which is a precise translation of the text which appears now on Wikipedia Italy, as a result of the letter of formal notice sent by Mr Briatore’s lawyers to Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Italy, contesting the previous version for its false and slanderous content."

I have declined semi-protection, which would not solve anything. Shadow003's changes to the article have twice been reverted as removing sourced information. I will also post at WP:ANI bcause of the reference to lawyers and the Foundation. JohnCD (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone taking an interest in this article should check User talk:Shadow003 for input, as the user has been blocked for legal threats but invited to contribute there. JohnCD (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Dennis E. Ward

The neutrality of this article is in dispute. However, given the minor position of the elected official the page does not meet the necessary criterion of being a 'person of note' and should therefore be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.189.109 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Rosie Huntington-Whiteley

Is the "personal life" section in this biography encyclopedic or appropriate? PatGallacher (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it as a copyvio. Formerip (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This is great. PG, thanks for listing this. I was about to. Would everyone who comments please review the postions PG and I have taken on the article's talk page? David in DC (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Ummm, there are four sources and only one is in question as a copyright violation. I think the re-deletion is a bit peremptory. It's also not justified as it relates to the other three sources. Would you please consider returning the section and simply rephrasing the the part you think runs too close to the language of the Vogue UK article you've cited? David in DC (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It's the whole section which has been lifted from the article. If you text search for one of the names mentioned, you'll see what I mean. I thought it would be a shortcut to a solution to delete it on those grounds. Obviously not, but it's still a copvio, so I'm not going to restore it. Formerip (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Guided by your good advice, and after I saw that another editor had blanket restored the prose, I have reread all four sources, attributed multiple sources to facts that can be multiply sourced, and re-paraphrased everything. I think I've solved the CopyrightVio issues and also the CIRCULAR issues PG has raised on the talk page.

Now we're down to whether the section is encyclopedic enough. Right now the arguments are evenly balanced, numerically. But, since WP:VOTINGISEVIL, and the two positions seem well-stated, it's my hope that fresh voices will address the matter on the talk page of the article. I'm well aware that I have no corner on the wisdom market. (Hell, I'm often moved to wonder if I even have a stall there.) Would other editors please come to the article, review the history and the talk page discussion, and share with us the benefit of your counsel? Thanks. David in DC (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Todd Hollenshead

The "Controversy" section in the biography is defamatory, created by a vandal, improperly sourced to writings of his own creation, and has been removed multiple times, and reported to Wikipedia as defamatory. The poster of this information has vandalized the biography repeatedly and the page should be locked from further changes on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.246.40.99 (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I've requested semi-protection of the page at WP:RFPP. Please be aware of the WP:NLT policy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The sources for that section are dubious at best, so I have removed it.--ukexpat (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

...and reverted. Protection requested.--ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

OK so it's been "pending changes" protected, but that isn't much good if the changes are not being reviewed properly.--ukexpat (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

... which they weren't, but you've now fixed that with the reviewer, so all looks good again. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup all good. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Bzdelik

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

This article seems to have received a massive coatrack of negative content (albeit sourced) which appears to violate WP:UNDUE as well. In light of the extremely rapid-fire revert war, I fully protected the page and removed the content. I'd like some input on my actions and the content. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the removal because it was a large section blanking with no reason cited in the edit summary, and there were clearly a lot of references. Unrelated to my reasoning, but the username Dash Deac seems to imply a COI. Sfgiants1995 (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) RE and I sort of tripped over each other; I was looking at this, and when I finally figured out what was going on, the page had already been protected. I agree with your (Reaper's) assessment. This looks like a long running thing; I suspect we'll have to reprotect for longer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I am a new user and attempted to expand this article. My last submission was this which was taken down by the user Dash Deac without explanation. I would appreciate some guidance on the issue of what constitutes a proper submission. All the information I included was factual, sourced to reputable news outlets or blogs, and non-libelous. I am unsure how the term "coatrack" applies to this submission; Bzdelik is a basketball coach and facts regarding his basketball record seem appropriate and relevant. Further, I would appreciate some guidance on how such information is "undue weight". Since this page had experienced some vandalism in the past, I was hoping that addition of factual, sourced content would curtail future vandalism. I appreciate your feedback and attention to the situation. (107.7.113.202 (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC))

Stop Bbb23 From Vindictive Editing Chowdhury Tanbir Ahmed Siddiky Page

Chowdhury Tanbir Ahmed Siddiky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Stop Bbb23 from vindictive editing. You cannot win a edit war with us from many sites worldwide. We will see how long you can go on edit warring with us before deleting this page.82.73.35.159 (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

We want to see how long Bbb23 and his Wikipedia goons can go on edit warring with us from multiple sites around the world. Let's see who wins. We will continue to revert posts and we will continue to create new accounts and revert edits by Bbb23 from many locations around the world. Let's see who wins before a decision is taken to delete the page itself.82.73.35.159 (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection requested -- and now done. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the IP here needs to find out how Wikipedia works, and engage with us in a proper manner, rather than engaging in a futile edit war that cannot possibly succeed - we win such edit wars all the time, by simple expedient of protecting the article from edits. An article on a leading Bangladeshi politician isn't going to be deleted because of edit-warring - and engaging in such activities merely attracts more attention to the article. If the claims regarding the individual being expelled from the Bangladesh Nationalist Party are incorrect, or improperly sourced, they can of course be rectified in the appropriate manner - by providing the necessary evidence. I suggest that the IP finds the necessary evidence, and then returns here with it so it can be looked into. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Extra eyes are still needed on the article - a registered contributor is now involved in edit-warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

If nothing else it's nice that the IP effectively reported themselves here though. a13ean (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Stuart Hall (presenter)

BBC is today (breaking news) reporting his arrest on rape allegations[1]. That may or may not belong on his article, but the vandalism had already started so I've semied for 3 days. Can some folk watchlist this?--Scott Mac 16:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Winslow T. Wheeler

Some IP changes on the page just now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winslow_T._Wheeler&action=historysubmit&diff=526584374&oldid=507509104

Seem to be off on tone to me, but since I know the person in question, I'm reserving personal judgement on this. Hcobb (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed all that sentence and took it to the talk page. --Malerooster (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Alexander von Fürstenberg

It is verfiable that the subject has two children, as the Wikipedia article indicates. However, someone is inserting information that a "Dyllan Bernardo Zimberknopf" is one of von Furstenberg's children and representing this person as an heir. This cannot be verified reliably using any research tool available and has no background in fact with any publicly available information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.191.24.139 (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I have removed part of that section as not reliably sourced.--ukexpat (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ole Nydahl

There has been a long-running attempt (since around February 2010) to include defamatory material in this article by an IP editor, based on a opinion piece in the LaCrosse Tribune. The piece being used as a source is clearly an opinion piece, not a news article, refers to a defamatory claim without reporting on who made the claim or giving any indication whatsover as to where the claim could be substantiated or verified, asks a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type question, and then tries to make something of the subject's non-denial response. The unsubstantiated defamatory claim has been placed and replaced in the article multiple times by the IP, worded as if true (e.g. [2]).

After thoroughly analysing the situation, I have entirely removed the section based on this material per WP:BLPGOSSIP. I'd like it if someone could review this action and let me know if it was an appropriate response, and if it was indeed appropriate, to assist in convincing the IP editor that they are in error in their opinion that the material should be included. If the IP editor cannot be convinced that they are in error, I think that either the article will need protection or the IPs used by the editor should be blocked.

Thanks. Yworo (talk) 07:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree: this is way too gossipy. If this continues, protection is the next best thing; please report to WP:RFP with a link to this discussion. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

(copied from article talk page) Hi Yworo, why should it matter where the claim originally came from? In his phone-conversation with the Lacrosse columnist, Nydahl not only didn't deny having sexual relations with his students, but also provided a clear rationale - “There’s no teacher-student relationship involved in that,” he said by phone. “They’re Diamond Way Buddhists, but they’re not my students in that moment. They’re equal partners.” The article is still around, unlike many defamatory pieces that unfairly decry Nydahl. This implies that the phone conversation indeed took place that way. I would be glad to discuss that on WP:BLP, but I am not very active. How do I do so? Also, your analysis was very one-sided (you didn't provide a link to Orso's text), and exactly one other poster agreed. I don't think that this is sufficient for taking out the entire piece. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It matters because we cannot propagate unfounded gossip in a gossip loop. This is specifically prohibited in WP:BLP. In particular, the claim is not sourced, it is anonymous gossip being repeated. Second, the source is not a news source, it's a biased opinion piece in which Orso makes clear his negative personal feelings about this unsourced gossip. Such sources, in and of themselves, are not considered reliable sources when it comes to BLPs. Third, Nydahl does not affirm or admit the gossip. Diamond Way, like many other Buddhist organizations, has multiple centers and local teachers. It may very well be that even if he, as he suggests might have happened, had a relationship with a member of Diamond Way, he may not have been the student's direct teacher. It also leaves open the possibility that the relationship occurred before the individual became a Diamond Way Buddhist and simply continued after she decided to join. The "answer" is ambiguous and does not give us enough information to reliably report it. It's not an admission of anything in particular: there is no accuser, there are no actual news reports based on any accusations or lawsuits. Given the fact that we have no reliable information about the gossip, we cannot be the source for further repetition of unfounded gossip. Now, if sources can be provided detailing an accusation or accusations by someone who considers herself to have been victimized in any way, then we'd have a basis for including it in the article. However, even if we found more reports of the gossip, we could not include it, specifically because it is gossip. This is, essentially, an accusation, for which we require the name of an accuser, whether it be a victim, a prosecutor, or the original source of the gossip (unlikely). For all we know, the "source" from which Orso got this gossip was a phone call from the IP who keeps trying to insert the material into the article. We simply have to know more that that. Hope this answers your question. Yworo (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Ole Nydahl has had a relationship with at least one very prominent female student of his: In this article Cathy Hartung describes how she came to be his lover. Interestingly, unlike him, she doesn't distinguish between herself as a lover and herself as a student as strongly as Nydahl does, she just states that she sometimes tries to distinguish those two roles so it doesn't become difficult. The article is in German, unfortunately, but even a translation with Google Translate is sufficient to understand the meaning and the main content - that Cathy Hartung first became a student and then, later, a lover of Ole Nydahl. In this article by Scherer, she is also mentioned as his girlfriend, as she is mentioned in this one. I think in this context, the quotes from Orso's opinion piece make sense and can be used. Nydahl has never denied that she hasn't been his only partner among his students. If I remember correctly, he even names other women that were both partners and students in his biography. In this interview, Ole himself says that he had many women on his travels who learned meditating (from the context it is clear that he taught them). Sceptic Watcher (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

So, no actual complaints have been raised by anyone. How is a subject's uncontroversial sex life of any interest to our readers? That clearly falls under WP:BLPGOSSIP: "even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject?" Our IP wants to make an "issue" of it. But unless it's been reported as an "issue" or "controversy" in the mainstream press, it's of no interest to our readers and we have a general obligation to maintain the privacy of the living people involved, which includes people other than the subject who are not public figures and whose privacy we should not further violate, even if their involvement with the subject has been reported elsewhere. If and when there is an actual "controversy" that makes the papers rather than just Buddhist-oriented materials, then we can reconsider. Yworo (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The repeating of information here- on a page much more highly visible than the article in question- is not helping the BLP concerns. I've had a look, and agree that the source in question is an opinion piece, and that the info is probably not warranted to be included in the article. If anyone agrees, I'd support removing the info from the article, and hatting the above discussion. Ditch ∝ 03:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't get why you think the information isn't important. Nydahl was critizised for this behavior by the German Buddhist Union, and in general, it is noteworthy if a teacher of any kind has sexual relationships with students. For example, in the UK, school teachers are often prohibited by their schools to have relationships with their students even if the students have reached age of consent. It is a piece of information that helps the reader to understand Nydahl's approach to teaching and life better. To compare with another person of interest, the article on Gene Simmons includes information about his sexual relationships. The controversies are similar in nature, if not in scale. In general, it is information that is freely available in primary sources. A compromise might be to quote those sources and ditch the piece by Orso - Hartung basically gives the same rationale in her interview. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not a whole lot experienced with Wikipedia but I would also add that if you add up the journalistic sources, there is more than enough to show a controversy (and might I say, more is coming). There is also a piece in Morgenbladet.no, which has been originally referenced in the article on Nydahl but since removed, where _another_ journalist is critical of a possible compromization of the teacher-student relationship as Nydahl sleeps with his students to a wide degree. Likewise, Danish academic Jørn Borup says that Nydahl is "certainly fond of women", just like there has been internal controversy with the Danish AND German AND Norwegian Buddhist communities over just this. (Google 'Nydahl' and 'Tiltogaard')

Furthermore I not would like to ask readers in general why regulars like Yworo can use threats and attitudes towards me like "now get lost" and "you will be blocked", even though I am merely arguing my point of view, and not even editing any articles? I not do claim that I have acted perfectly, but I offered some real arguments, which were edited away without response. I also inserted quotes which were dismissed because they were non-English, even thought he article containing the quotes was already featured in the article. When I pointed this out, I then get a different explanation. In fact, what consistently seems to happen is that people get brushed off with no arguments or faulty arguments and when they then point out the lacklustre nature of those arguments, they get some better arguments and some aggressiveness / dismissiveness like "get lost." Should Wikipedia function the way that people should restrain their aggressiveness / dismissiveness until they have actually offered good arguments? In any case, it seems there are some regulars who can take all kinds of liberties in editing and insulting that others apparently can't. 89.150.118.208 (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of "aggressiveness / dismissiveness", I believe it was you who first adopted that tone in your very first post as this IP on Talk:Ole Nydahl. To quote, you said, "Wikipedia is about arguments, not a show of hands. If you can't offer up arguments, you should go away." Perhaps this is why other editors feel that you've given them permission to treat you similarly. Yworo (talk) 23:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I personally ignore virtually all rudeness; but if you feel this is an issue there are other venues for this, not BLPN. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You might want to note that we specifically are not allowed to "add up the journalistic sources" on Wikipedia. That's synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research". Yworo (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

So just including a reference to the primary literature stating Nydahl has taken students as girlfriends and leaving out Orso's article would be ok? Sceptic Watcher (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No, because 1) it's primary literature. We need secondary sources for BLPs. 2) None of the sources you present say anything about any controversy regarding it. In fact, they all present it in a matter-of-fact manner, and don't report anyone being upset or concerned about the relationship. We can't make up a controversy or even a concern where none has been reliably reported in secondary sources. Yworo (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You're flat-out wrong there. The relevant part from your own link:

Using the subject as a self-published source

Further information: WP:SELFPUB

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

it is not unduly self-serving;

it does not involve claims about third parties;

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

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

the article is not based primarily on such sources.

These provisions do not apply to autobiographies published by reliable third-party publishing houses, because they are not self-published.

None of the reasons not to use it apply. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It clearly involves claims about third parties, his wife and his girlfriend. Any claims involving third-parties must be cited to secondary sources. Quotations from interviews are primary source material, even if technically not self-published. How hard is that to understand? And again, none of the sources you have presented use the word "controversy" or even frame the situation as controversial. You are calling it a "controversy" out of thin air. Yworo (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

What "claim" does it involve? He doesn't claim anything besides the fact that they are/were his wife and his girlfriend. This information is freely available from a multitude of sources, for example the academic article by Scherer. Anyway, all the material is also in his biography. As I said, I'll have access to it this weekend. We can then use quotes from an autobiography published by a reliable third-party publishing house. And by the way, you continue to conflate my opinion with IP-guys opinion. I don't neccessarily think this is a controversy. I just think the information that he likes non-monogamous relationships is worthy of being included in the article. We have information on his political views, why exclude information on his views about family-related issues? And yes, I do think the fact that he doesn't just say non-monogamy is fine, but practices non-monogamy verifies his position on these issues and should therefore be included.Sceptic Watcher (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It involves the claim that other people (wife, girlfriend) were involved in a non-monogamous relationship. We can only use statements by the subject that involve the subject only (this exception was only intended to source non-controversial facts such as birthdate, birthplace, dates of moving, length of residence, places travelled, and other simple facts exclusively about the subject). And this restriction also applies to his autobiography, regardless of who published it, because it is still a primary source. In order to include this information, we require multiple independent, third-party, reliable sources which report on it, and you simply don't have adequate sourcing for this. Only a third-party reliable report makes the detail notable and overcomes concerns about undue weight. Further, you show no indication of having read WP:NPF, which gives guidelines about what we can say about "People who are relatively unknown": we are instructed to "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources". This would apply to Ms. Hartung. As she is not notable, we really cannot mention anything involving her at all. Further, the late Mrs. Nydahl was notable as a Buddhist teacher, but she was not notable as a polyamorist, so we cannot mention the latter about her either. What is said in the article does not only reflect on the subject - it reflects on the people who the subject was close to, and that is territory we cannot enter without multiple independent secondary reliable sources. Yworo (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

When reading "These provisions do not apply to autobiographies published by reliable third-party publishing houses, because they are not self-published.", how do you infer And this restriction also applies to his autobiography, regardless of who published it, because it is still a primary source.? Those two statements directly contradict each other, one of them is from the BLP page. Your statement seems to imply that this statement is wrong. Please explain how you arrive at this conclusion. Concerning the privacy of Ms. Hartung, firstly, it isn't neccessary to name her as his former girlfriend, is it? Just stating that he had been living non-monogamously without naming her would be sufficient. Secondly, and more importantly, the section you linked to refers to articles about the person in question. I do not plan on writing a whole article about Ms. Hartung. About your concern that we might give undue weight: There are multiple primary sources in which Nydahl talks about the subject, it is clearly important to him, and I don't intend to include any views in the article, only the fact that he likes non-monogamous relationships and practiced them in the past. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Because I actually went to WP:SELFPUB, where that statement is not included. I wasn't born yesterday, you added that here, but it's not actually in the policy. The word "autobiography" does not even appear on the page. Shame on you. Yworo (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

And WP:NPF clearly states that it applies "even if they are notable enough for their own article". Please stop misrepresenting and intentionally misreading our policies. To make it short, unless you get support from other editors here on this noticeboard, the material will not be added to the article. I see zero support for you here from the regular editor familiar in-depth not only with the policy but for the reasons the policy is written as it is. I for one am done arguing with you, since you "cheat". Have fun getting support from the other editors, who don't even seem to be willing to discuss it any further with you. Bottom line, if you add anything to the article, it will be removed. Yworo (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, we have a difference between the rules given in WP:SELFPUB and the rules under WP:BLP about self-pub. As I said above, I went to the site you linked to. Above, you linked to WP:BLP, not to WP:SELFPUB. This is where the quoted sentence on autobiographies comes from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source I don't cheat, and I find that accusation unfair.

Also, I have no idea what you mean with your reference to WP:NPF. Caty Hartung is not notable enough for her own article. I never debated that. That's why I think her name should be left out. I would really appreciate if you answered, since there's obviously a misunderstanding. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The sourcing is completely unacceptable for negative content on a BLP. End of story. This content must remain out of the article until there is significant coverage by reliable sources, which does not include editorials, opinion pieces, and blogs. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Has puppy taken the time to read the four other sources that corrobate the fact that Nydahl does take students as girlfriends? Those are neiter editorials, opinion pieces or blogs, but primary sources directly from the organization founded by the person the article is about or by his students. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have read through them all, and they don't say that. In particular, they don't actually mention any details of any sexual relationships. They essentially say that he at one time had a consensual group marriage composed of himself, his wife, and one other woman. There are no complaints in the article from any of the parties or even from the writers or interviewers. His wife is now deceased, and we don't know anything else. This is none of our business or our readers business. Yworo (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Um, Nydahl explicitly says he stopped having multiple relationships at the same time because of AIDS and the bad example of another buddhist teacher. If his relationships had been non-sexual, this would make no sense. And that the parties involved are ok with it doesn't mean it isn't the readers business. As I said above, the standards applied to teachers are usually rather high, and there was criticism by the German Buddhist Union. Simply put, the people most likely to read this article (outside of editors, of course) are potential students. I think especially for female potential students, the information that Nydahl has had sexual relationships with female students in the past while they were his students is relevant. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Quite simply, that's not Wikipedia's job. Let the GBU and other Buddhist organizations police their own, if they believe it necessary. In any case, you seem to be reading a lot into what the articles actually say. Why do we care about what the subject did prior to 1983, before the Sharmapa had even named him a "master"? He was in his 30s then and he is in his 70s now. And even at the time of the interview, the topic was the consensual group relationship including his wife and only one other woman. You can't get a plurality of student partners from that! Give it up, it's in no way appropriate for a Wikipedia article. You seem to be trying to tar and feather the subject for something that might have occurred (and apparently never caused any controversy either at the time or even later) over 30 years ago! Yworo (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

By the same reasoning, why should we care about any of his other biographical details? It is an interesting fact that allows the reader to better understand Nydahl and his approach to life. Concerning multiple partnerships, I'm referring to the following passage from the interview with him that I cited above: "Relationships are a topic everybody probably has to deal with all of their lives. Surprisingly, I have now heard that you officialy have to women. How do you and the women feel? Earlier, I had a lot of women because of the constant traveling. That was part of the time and was ok. We were good friends, they learned meditating and we shared many good things. But then, AIDS came, and I had to make an example as teacher. There was a well-known buddhist group, Dharmadhatu, whose bisexual teacher knew since 1983 that he was HIV-positive. Despite that, he didn't tell his students till 1988 and didn't protect them. Some of them became ill and died, he also died. It was a terrible scandal. When it became known, I knew that this wasn't allowed to happen to the Diamondway. That's why I became more bourgeois. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

First, a person's sex life is private and generally of no interest to us. Second, it involves other people who have a presumption of privacy because they are not public figures (see WP:NPF). Third, we are not allowed to make any inferences from what Nydahl has said. Sure, he says he "had a lot of women while travelling" - so what? Where does he explicitly say that the women were his students? That's right, he doesn't, you are reading that into it, and we cannot do that on Wikipedia. Where is the source that explicitly states that there was 1) any controversy and 2) that any of the women other than the one involved in the consensual group marriage were students? None of the sources you present say these things explicitly. You can read between the lines all you want. Wikipedia cannot. Yworo (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The sex life of a multitude of public people is discussed on Wikipedia. Polyamorism isn't the norm, and people who are polyamorists are listed for that attribute on Wikipedia [[3]]. Concerning the quote: Unfortunately, I'm on the road. I have his biography at home, IIRC, he makes statements that conform to the standard you require. I could provide a better fitting quote this weekend. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) Per Yworo; Wikipedia is not the place to right wrongs or warn or inform people about how awful someone is. You must have extensive reliable sourcing which support your desired content in order to include negative information about living persons, and you simply don't have that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

What is negative about multiple partners? I never claimed it is. It is just information potential students should be privy to. As I said above, Polyamorism isn't the norm and noteworthy. It can be stated neutrally without any judgement, can't it? Sceptic Watcher (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Where did polyamory enter into this? I haven't seen a source that uses that word, have you? Yworo (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, the topic is not brought up in the German Wikipedia article either, although several of the sources you present were in German, and you claim there was a controversy about it in Germany. Clearly German Wikipedia has similar rules about privacy and not unnecessarily detailing personal relationships. Yworo (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You said yourself that one of the sources I provided describes a consensual group marriage. A consensual group marriage is a form of polyarmory. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, we've had this issue on the List of polyamorists article. Unless a source says it's polyamory, it's not. The only thing really said about the nature of the relationship by Nydahl is "we don't find monogamy necessary" (London Times, 1999). We don't accept that as automatically meaning "polyamory" here. Yworo (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd think that by common sense the standard should depend on context. Something can be insufficiently related to polyamory to count when we're making a list, yet sufficiently related to count when we're worried about negative effects of calling them that, since the former requires near certainty while the latter does not. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Polyamory is one of those things that a living person has to self-identify as practicing. If they don't call themselves polyamorous, we can't call them that. Non-monogamy is a broader category than polyamory, which has additional requirements. We as Wikipedia editors don't get to judge whether or not these additional requirements were present or not. That would be original research. Yworo (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

My point is that when we decide whether to call someone a polyamorist, we need self-identification, but when we're saying "we might want to exclude that, since including it amounts to an accusation of polyamory" we don't need self-identification. Deciding to exclude an accusation because the accusation basically calls someone a polyamorist is neither original research nor requires any self-identification whatsoever. (What would self-identification even mean there?) Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Got it. I agree, we should not include it. Yworo (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, huh? Seems like speculation to me. The article is shorter overall, perhaps not detailing it was an oversight? Above, you accuse me of interpreting and reading into an article, now you are interpreting and reading into the absence of information. Sceptic Watcher (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I support Yworo. Merigar (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Leather

It would be helpful if somone besides me would look at the merits of the material that User:Jprw has repeatedly added to the lead of this article. The issue of Leather's using fake accounts to bolster sales of his books has been discussed before on the article talk page. There is a section on it in the article. Before Jprw's edits, there was nothing in the lead about it. I don't have a strong objection to it being mentioned in the lead, but a short sentence would be sufficient (I tried one - didn't go over with the editor). Also, the longer sentence that is there now is an inaccurate characterization of what is in the body. I haven't looked at the sources Jprw cites in the lead to see if they add anything to the sources already in the body, but my preference (and Wikipedia's) is that leads have no sources, but only summarize well-sourced body material. I suggested in my edit summary that Jprw go to talk per WP:BRD, but that went over like a dead balloon, and to be fair, I haven't started a topic on the talk page, either; part of that is because the issues are not really new, and I get tired of content circles.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I would object to having that "material" in the lede. I could maybe live with your version in the lede, but only as a compromise. Is there some reason Jprw is hell bent on his "long" version? --Malerooster (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Heh, you'd have to ask them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, Jprw, is there some reason you are hell bent on the long version in the lede? Thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Jprw might not be aware of this discussion here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I was involved in the initial discussions about this material. As far as I know, this is still the same incident (for want of a better word) which is being re-visited/perpetuated. I have re-read through the three sources and my concern is the article should be accurate. Leather has admitted using sockpuppet accounts - not to posting 'reviews' of his books but rather to bolster interest in them on forums. As far as I can see, none of the sources state he wrote fake reviews; R J Ellory is the person who admitted posting fake reviews. The most recently added reference [4] does have a comment added by Vinjamuri (the author of the piece) where he states he may have mis-represented Leather and that it is just an op-ed column. It's on the third page of comments.

I am still a little unsure of wiki etiquette, so have also posted this comment on the talk page. As I said above, my concern is the Wiki article should be accurate and report facts without being blown out of proportion. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sanaz Alasti

User:Kabirat has been involved in addition of dangerous unsourced content across this and other articles and is clearly in breach of WP:BLP. Also involved in various edit wars (with people trying to abide by WP:BLP) on multiple articles. Given final warning regarding behaviour. [5] [6] [7] [8]. Seems to be focused exclusively on Iranian WP:BLPs with no regard for WP:NPOV. Per my talk page, refuses to accept that reading something on a Facebook which is subsequentally deleted and cannot be sourced does not count as a verifiable evidence. Almost entire edit history is edit warring over WP:BLP articles. Wasn't sure if this was the ideal place to report, it seems there's some overlap. -Rushyo ^Talk 10:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Ahmad al-Hassan al-Yamani

The video is Standard YouTube License, which is Creative Commons Attribution. Regardless it's not proscribed to link to copyrighted works, only to include them as content. -Rushyo ^Talk 15:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless of course the video is being hosted in contravention of somebodies copyright, in which case ELNO#Restrictions_on_linking applies. If doug is referring to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUE2H0qaSlY then the onscreen DOG means it's probably a TV recording and the given licence is incorrect, so it should not be used. 149.241.56.23 (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Wakefield

Summary as follows, help requested on NPOV and BLP noticeboards. NPOV tag added but hopefully will be removed shortly

Problem: First sentence of article states a seriously contested assertion (fraud) as fact

Issues: Libel and NPOV

Definition of Fraud: would a lay reader interpret the first sentence as relating to scientific or criminal fraud ?

If criminal, then Wakefield has an over-riding presumption of innocence until there is a verdict regardless of his approach to litigation. If scientific, then can we use the ORI definition (http://ori.hhs.gov/definition-misconduct) which would fit with the Lancet / GMC statements. Grateful for help and advice Nernst (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

For context, Andrew Wakefield is the British doctor (now living in Texas) who was stripped of his medical license after it came to light that he had engaged in a wide variety of unethical conduct to produce a now-withdrawn and entirely discredited scientific paper linking the MMR vaccine to autism. Libel actions by Wakefield against Brian Deer – the journalist who first drew major public attention to Wakefield's misconduct – have been unsuccessful.

Meanwhile, here on Wikipedia Nernst is forum-shopping because he just won't take 'no' for an answer. He was blocked for engaging in a vigorous edit war over the identical issue at MMR vaccine controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (most of his reverts were while logged out as 2.98.182.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) about six weeks ago. He's now fighting the same WP:IDHT fight against consensus and making the same arguments at Andrew Wakefield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), slapping a gratuitous {npov} tag on the article, and engaging in ask-the-other-parent crossposting here and at WP:NPOV/N. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Over half a dozen requests for help and guidance from editors on article ALL ignored. No other responses other than "we achieved consensus before and do not wish to discuss this". Not reasonable to critizise imperfect editing when consistently refusing to point me in the right direction.Nernst (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The only issue should be: are the sources provided in the article reliable and authoritative enough to support the claims? The sentence in the lead is "Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born 1957) is a British former surgeon and medical researcher, known for his fraudulent 1998 research paper in support of the now-discredited claim that there is a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and the appearance of autism and bowel disease." Sources cited for the claims: British Medical Journal article "Wakefield's article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences article "Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications", Time Magazine article "Great Science Frauds". Zad68 17:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I also don't see anyone supporting Nernst in this like of argument, looks like it could reasonably be described as IDHT. a13ean (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Amazing ! Start an edit war, you get banned for a week but things get changed. Try to do things "properly" and you get ignored, vilified and feel like banging your head against a wall. I had thought the argument regarding sources had finished - BMJ/TIME/PNAS = opinion = worthless. If it scientific misconduct it should be cited PROPERLY as such. If criminal it should be removed under presumption of innoncence. I have consistenly listened and answered politely and asked for help where appropriate but it seems this is pointless when faced with a deaf, angry mob.Nernst (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There are scores of the highest quality sources (journals), compliant with WP:MEDRS, supporting the "fraudulent". Many of them are cited in the article already; there are many more. This discussion has been had multiple times on article talk. There is no BLP vio; Wikipedia is reporting what the highest quality medical journal sources say on the matter, and "fraudulent" was repeated by scores of the highest quality media sources. There's nothing to see here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Nernst, you may have a misapprehension of some of wikipedia's core policies. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. As SG said, there are multiple high-quality sources that converge on this point - Wakefield's research was fraudlent. We do not engage in original research to split hairs over our definition of fraud compared to a source - the source always wins. You may personally disagree with the source's use of fraud, but that is essentially irrelevant. Finally, you may think "neutral" means "uncritical", "fair" or "providing the benefit of the doubt". This is not the case. Neutral means as represented in reliable sources. There are many sources that are highly critical of Wakefield, and the ones that support him are of very low quality - blogs, self-published books, non-peer-reviewed journals and the like. You may certainly include dissenting opinions published in reliable sources, but wikipedia takes a very mainstream-focussed approach and the mainstream consensus is that Wakefield's research was, put mildly, extremely problematic. We do not presume innocence until proven guilty, we follow the sources. And the best sources do not treat Wakefield's work as a seriously contested fact - they treat it as fraudulent. It is quite possible the only outcome you will get from any message board is that you must accept these facts, even if you do not like them. Without a policy-based reasoning (that agrees with the true sense of the policy, not what you think it means) or some excellent sources (that I don't think exist) you are unlikely to see the lead change. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Nernst's view is perfectly reasonable. He or she has every right to attempt to persuade others to it; and having failed to persuade the regulars at the article, taking the issue here for more eyes is fine. It is not forum-shopping. It is the next step. This is how this place works. It is an unusual case - Wikipedia describing as fraudulent the behaviour of a living person who has not been convicted of fraud in a court of law. It deserves scrutiny, and lots of eyes. Personally, I'm convinced we have a duty to do just as we are doing, but I have no problem at all with that being interrogated thoroughly by the community. All I ask is that nobody opines here until they've at least read the article and the current discussion on the article talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps things were different when Nernst started his campaign, but the current version says "fraudulent research paper", thus research fraud -- and that is indisputably verified. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

We're fairly careful. We say:

his fraudulent 1998 research paper
an editorial accompanying an article by Brian Deer in BMJ identified Wakefield's work as an "elaborate fraud"
the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, identified Wakefield's 1998 paper as the most cited retracted scientific paper, with 758 citations, and gave the "reason for retraction" as "fraud".
In January 2012 Wakefield filed a defamation lawsuit in Texas state court against Deer, Fiona Godlee and the BMJ for false accusations of fraud
Physicians, medical journals, and editors have made statements tying Wakefield's fraudulent actions to various epidemics and deaths.

Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The only potential difficulty I see in that list is the BMJ editorial. Fortunately it is properly attributed in text to Deer, so in the end, fine. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Just when I had lost all faith in collaborative editing and critical thinking I am humbled and grateful for excellent preceding 2 posts from Anthonyncole and WLU. I have limited experience with Wikipedias rules and processes but will try to explain my view in those terms.

WP:BLPCRIME and WP:CRIMINAL suggests editors avoid inserting material related to a crime when a conviction has not been secured. WP:NPOV states that we should avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.

Wakefield has not been convicted of fraud in a court of law and has contested charges of fraud in 3 failed libel actions. So if a person reading the lead sentence could reasonably conclude he has been found criminally guilty of fraud then the term should be removed.

There is an alternative reading i.e. that he is guilty of scientific fraud. In which case the term 'scientific' should be inserted in to the lead and the primary source quoted: the GMC finding of fact and the Lancet retraction. Ideally, to assist readers this would be accompanied by a link to the office of scientific integrity which provides a definition of scientific fraud.

While the BMJ is a very high quality source, the reference to it's editorial should be removed as per WP:NEWSORG as we are not attributing the statements to the editor but using them as statements of fact. The TIME article refers to the BMJ and so fails the circular argument test within the same guidance.

I am not unreasonable and if the consensus is that the article should remain the same, then so be it. It may just desserts that Wakefield is being viewed and treated in this way but none of us would want an accusation of fraud leveled lightly against us and if nothing else he has taught us to treat with caution even the most prestigious of sources Nernst (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The BMJ article is not subject to NEWSORG as the BMJ is not a news organisation. The fact the the Time article refers to it is reason to include it, not to exclude it. No reasonable person could read the lead sentence as an accusation of criminal fraud. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I've altered the lead to make it clear it is scientific misconduct (i.e. scientific fraud), not criminal. As Nomo stated, it is very obvious that the issue is one of research, not criminal fraud, and we would not cite primary sources, particularly when such excellent secondary sources are available. As for "seriously contested" - the fact that Wakefield's paper was fraudulent is not seriously contested. The mainstream expert opinion is quite clearly that it was. Wakefield may protest his innocence, but independent, reliable sources disagree and per WP:NPOV they get more weight.

I do not see focusing on criminal issues as relevant, since the lead clearly frames it as scientific misconduct. BLPCRIME and CRIMINAL do not apply (particularly since the latter is a criteria for notability, and Wakefield is clearly notable).

It looks pretty clear that the consensus is against you, mostly because so many sources are explicit and critical in their handling of the matter. Your pointing to WP:NEWSORG and original research regarding whether the Time article is appropriate is, in fact, not appropriate. Both are more than sufficient to verify the statements they are appended to in the lead. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I had no idea that Wikipedia used secondary in preference to primary sources since it's the opposite of what happens in scientific literature. As to whether a reasonable person could interpret the lead as referring to criminal fraud, the whole reason I posted here was to find out. The BMJ has news articles in its first dozen pages so the distinction is blurred but I'm willing to concede the point, particularly since it's no longer seems relevant; it's a secondary source and therefore stronger not weaker ! I am grateful for the clarification on the lead. I'll use my final edit (3rd revert) to 'add' scientific after 1998 so there can be absolutely no confusion. I don't follow the sentence in relation to OR could you please clarify. I agree the consensus is in favour of the status quo, i'll give it 24hrs then withdraw peacefully and with thanks for your patience, guidance and clarification.Nernst (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

And I've undone WLU's WP:EGG (scientific misconduct was the wikilink, but fraudulent was the wording) because that's not how we do it (easter egg links, hidden words). [9] Either we mean one or the other, but not one linking to the other. For now, I've left "scientific misconduct"-- not saying that "fraudulent" isn't supported by the sources, just removing the Easter egg link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources are used in preference to primary to avoid original research. Original research is when an editor adds text to a page either without a source, or by drawing a conclusion that the source itself does not make. In this case, you are also using original research to say Time is not a reliable source because it is just citing the BMJ article. It's not quite the same context, but the sense is the same - editors must rely on an accurate summary of the sources, not what they think of their sources. For more information please read the policies in question.

Ya, my link was EGG-y, no worries. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Is the blue link really necessary ? Sorry to bring us round full circle but in the circumstances the secondary sources seem deliberate in their use of the term 'fraud' Nernst (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

On the link, scientific misconduct is already wiki-linked elsewhere in the article, so may or may not be needed in the lead. On the broader matter, while I agree that "fraud" is supported by the sources (and the majority of them, including those of the highest quality), I suspect we can find a middle ground that will satisfy everyone-- one that simply involves recasting a few sentences to make the text even more clear. That is, as in some of my other edits, make it clear that the sources (not Wikipedia) are assigning the label "fraudulent" (and there are scores of them), and somewhere clarifying early on (without the EGGy link) that scientific misconduct (using the link) was involved. In other words, while there is nothing wrong with the current text, and sources support it, we can avoid these recurring issues by finding a way to tighten the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This really ought not be an issue. It's as reasonable to read an allegation of crime into the phrase "known for his fraudulent 1998 research paper" as it would be into "she murdered Nine To Five with her karaoke version". Formerip (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There are few contexts in which the term fraud will not be seen as a highly charged and emotive word, particularly to someone with a professional qualification. Where no conviction exists, it should be used carefully and thoughtfully. My original argument regarding it's use seems to be wrong and i am sorry if my edits were poor or caused other editors inconvenience. I am NOT sorry for questioning the use of the word fraud or asking other editors to justify their logic.Nernst (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

What about just changing the phrasing to something like "accused of scientific fraud" instead of "fraudulent?" Like, "Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born 1957) is a British former surgeon and medical researcher accused of committing scientific fraud in a 1998 research paper in support of the now-discredited claim that there is a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and the appearance of autism and bowel disease." That way it leaves in the accusation but words slightly less biased. RunnerOnIce (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

"Accused of" misses the point, when the journals that published some of the original work found it to be fraudulent research and retracted the original publications. The work is described as fraudulent by multiple high quality sources; we don't need to water that down. It does seem that making it more clear that it is scientific misconduct, research fraud, whatever might help, since folks seem to keep thinking it's run-of-the-mill criminal fraud (wanting words like "alleged" and "accused of", when the research fraud has been demonstrated by the journals that retracted the articles and is supported by high quality sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy -- there is no case for "accused of", it really couldn't be clearer that the scientific community and other interested parties have expressed an unequivocal view that this was fraud (not that it might have been fraud). Conveying that unequivocal view is not "bias". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; for example the Schön scandal is a similar case in which papers were forcibly withdrawn. He continues to deny it to this day, but a large number of high quality sources including the original journals determined his work to be fraudulent, and it's correctly identified as such in the first sentence of that article. a13ean (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

"Accused of" would be inaccurate. We strive to report what sources say; they it was fraud. They don't say he was accused of fraud. Killer Chihuahua 13:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

john leguizamo

There is a line about John's son not being circumsised. John's som is 11 years old, a minor. He is also not a public person. He is being harrassed at school. Please remove this line. I've tried and it keeps coming back. It is in the "personal life" section of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.200.243.13 (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Having now familiarised myself with the BLP policy I will not restore the content about Leguizamo's views on circumcision. I felt it was notable given the fact his wife is Jewish and for a celebrity to speak so frankly about a controversial subject is interesting, but I accept that it breaks the BLP policy and may not be appropriate. Thanks. --TBM10 (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I have removed a similar addition of yours from Jemima Kirke - are there any others? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I revdeled the more recent mentions of the information in view of the ip's complaint. It goes a long way back in the article, so I thought getting it out of the first page of the history is sufficient under the circumstances. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

John Nkomo

John Nkomo, Vice-president of Zombabwe, is gravely ill but is not dead. See newszimbabwe.com, which first reported the story and has now retracted this and apologized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savaici (talk • contribs) 02:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sharon Gans

As chance would have it, I recently visited Sharon Gans to find this version of the article, complete with sensationalist, anonymous allegations that were published from 1978-1979. After visiting the links and reviewing the information, I stubbified the entire article and left a note on the talk page. Now, I bring the issue here to this noticeboard, because I predict the obsessed editor who added this material will continue to try to add it back, as the page history shows. Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Caroline Hoxby

A person whom I know repeatedly adds material to my biography page to advertise his own work. He does this repeatedly, with wholly malicious intent. He will soon be reported to his Dean if he continues to do this under the cloak of anonymity. His username is nomoskedasticity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.22.56.48 (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know you and am therefore probably not the person you have in mind. My concern has to do with deletion of passages based on published work that raises questions about your own. In that regard my intent is not at all malicious; rather it is rooted in WP:NPOV. In any event, let's see what other contributors here have to say. By the way, please use either your logged-in account (Choxby (talk · contribs)) or the IP address, but not both (per WP:SOCK). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that this is not an attempt to avoid scrutiny, so your warning about sockpuppetry is misplaced at best. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

And yet the request to use one account was appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the additions are valid. Another scholar challenged your work and you responded publicly. The brouhaha was noticed by the Wall Street Journal among others, making it very visible. This is a valid matter to be brought to the biography article, a notable incident in your career, albeit one that questions your scholarship. In the Wikipedia guideline on neutral point of view, notable and legitimate negative information is not to be struck from an article simply because it is negative.

The additions are not so much about the other scholar as they are about criticism of your widely cited paper. This is not a case of the other scholar trying to push his work at your expense, it is a case of telling the reader about a widely reported scholarly debate. Binksternet (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

My concern is that the content, as presented, was heading into synthesis territory. "This paper says this, this other paper says that, and that paper over there said this, so..." I think the previously cited Wall Street Journal article and the Crimson are fine, but the content as written doesn't appear to actually rely on them except to seemingly say "see, I promise, this is sourced." The Reardon critique is not mentioned in either of those sources, which makes it just another paper and unsuitable for a wp:blp without a reliable source indicating its relevance. If any of the "controversy" is going to stay, it needs to be rewritten more to the reliable sources and boiled down to its core facts. (For example, "serious criticism" was a Wikipedia editor's original research, as neither of the reliable sources cited defined the other papers as "serious" nor "criticism.") jæs (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Seconding this, and adding that I've changed the wording of a few places in the article, as a lot of it sounded very promotional in nature. You can see the differential here (sorry for the IP editing--I thought I was logged in at the time. RunnerOnIce (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the phrase "Hoxby's research has received much recognition..." was definitely promotional, especially as it preceded a list of internationally recognized awards. Good work! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You forgot your <sarcasm> and </sarcasm> tags. :) jæs (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Was wondering if that was intended to be sarcastic. Anyway, it's redundant to say the research has received much recognition and then list the awards--it's overkill. RunnerOnIce (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the portion of this that seemed to be one person's criticism, sourced solely to the paper which contained that criticism. The other dispute did get some press, but without looking into it in more depth it is hard to judge if this ultimately amounted to anything worth noting in a short biography such as this. I've left it in for now, but it might be worth a closer look if the subject still objects. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The other source was not simply "one person's criticism" but a scholar's review of another scholar's work. In any event, the passage was removed for lack of "secondary" coverage (a misuse of that notion, but never mind), and so I have now restored it with a third-party source, a published book by yet another scholar who discusses Reardon. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

A scholar only counts as "one person". I don't have a dog in this race, but it seems like an attempt to include negative material in the BLP no matter how trivial. If Reardon's criticism is noteworthy, we should include it, If it is not, we should leave it out. Are there other sources discussing it? If it is only mentioned in the one book, it really is undue weight including it. All scholars, especially prominent ones, are the subject of criticism. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

A scholar might be one person, but the source is exactly the sort of thing Wikipedia prefers, and so it's better than just one "person" or even one journalist. As for other coverage of Reardon's critique, the answer is: yes indeed -- do a google books search using the words reardon charter and hoxby. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't follow sociology at all, but I had actually heard about this controversy before it came here, so it apparently has some traction. Are there still any lingering concerns about including something along these lines now that it has a secondary source? a13ean (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yikes, let's not refer to her as a sociologist -- then she'll really get annoyed. There's little worse one could say about an economist... :) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

And just to follow up, I warned the IP about WP:NPA re the threats of off-wiki action bit. a13ean (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(←) I've removed the Reardon material. A single source does not alone establish that Reardon's view is even notable, nor that it rises to the level of being biographically-relevant to Hoxby. (If Reardon has an article here, you might consider making a case that it's relevant to his biography.) The other paper has significant mainstream press coverage; the Reardon view has none immediately apparent. At least three editors with no connection to the article have removed or advised removing the material, and the reasons for that were not satisfied by the Thomas text. I would strongly suggest that a consensus be clear and present agreeing that the material is reliably sourced, significantly biographical, and not undue before its reinclusion (either here or at the article's talk page). jæs (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Jaes, you appear to have missed the discussion just above in which it became clear that there was not just a "single source". I suggest you reconsider by virtue of reading the entire discussion here. By saying that Reardon's view is "not notable", you are misusing/misapplying WP:N and failing to consider WP:RS -- the sources provided for the text discussing Reardon's critique unquestionably satisfy the standards for sources here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I've followed the discussion here closely since shortly after it was first posted. The text I just removed from the article had a single secondary source (as the primary source from Reardon himself was not included in the text at the article when you reinserted it, and would not qualify as a reliable source in any event). I can assure you I am not misapplying wp:npov; while notability is required for an article to simply exist, wp:npov also requires viewpoints included be notable. Likewise, you can be certain I have not, in any way, failed to consider wp:rs; you speak of "sources" and yet you have presented only one, single, solitary secondary source for the Reardon article thus far. That one source by absolutely no means "unquestionably satisfies" our standards for sourcing, let alone wp:blp, your wikilawyering notwithstanding. jæs (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so you were unwilling to check, even with my assistance above? Okay, here's a list for you:

John Merrow, The Influence of Teachers: Reflections on Teaching and Leadership, p. 204
Another one by Thomas: Ignoring Poverty in the U.S.: The Corporate Takeover of Public Education, 2012, p. 162 (quoting several sentences from Reardon's piece)
Handbook of the Economics of Education, 2011, edited by Erik A. Hanushek, Stephen J. Machin, Ludger Woessmann, p. 553 (in chapter by Eric Bettinger)

Now, on top of that, perhaps you can tell me how the book by Thomas fails WP:RS -- particularly in view of the fact that it did first strike you as such. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

"Unwilling to check" what, exactly? Had you provided any of those sources here or at the article, prior to just now? Two apparently mention Reardon briefly in passing; I'm working to find the third to see if it asserts that the Reardon paper is anything more than a footnote in the "controversy." The impact, at this point, is the same: none have established the Reardon viewpoint as biographically relevant to Hoxby. Again, if you want to make a case for including the Reardon paper at an article on school vouchers, you might be able to wedge it in there. But we've covered the core of the debate over her paper, reliably, in the paragraph that is currently in the article. Dedicating another paragraph — or even a sentence — to the Reardon paper or other papers without significant reliable sources indicating that they are relevant to Hoxby's life is undue. jæs (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I gave you everything you needed above: a google books search on the terms reardon charter and hoxby. As for "briefly in passing" -- again, the second one listed above quotes several sentences from Reardon's critique. I also note you have declined the invitation to say how the Thomas book does not meet WP:RS. If the list above isn't enough for you, perhaps an article in the NYTimes would do it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Paper by the Economic Policy Institute, hosted at the Education Research Information Center, perhaps? I trust we won't have "passing mention" on that one -- Reardon is right there in the abstract. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Coverage in Education Week, perhaps? Again, right in the abstract. And hell, I'm not even on campus right now and so am not using the wider access I have to subscription-only stuff. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaken about how Wikipedia works; the burden is on you, as the party that wishes so strongly for material to be included, to provide reliable sources that make a clear case that the content is both relevant and necessary to present a neutral and due biography. You provided, prior to your edit a few minutes ago, a single secondary source. I've not questioned nor endorsed the reliability of the initial Thomas source, but your using it as a strawman is noted.

One more time, and then I'll leave it to the other editors to either debate or acquiesce to your relentless insistence that Reardon be included in Hoxby's biography: the debate between Hoxby and Rothstein received significant, widespread, and notable coverage. The Reardon viewpoint — even with the brief mention on a New York Times blog — is but a footnote in that debate. None of the sources even come close to indicating that his viewpoint is biographically relevant to Hoxby. If the Hoxby-Rothstein debate had its own article, or perhaps at school voucher or school choice, you might have an argument. But here it is a merely an attempt, intentionally or otherwise to coatrack her biography into one of those things, and that is absolutely undue.

(Best of luck with your campaign, though. You undoubtedly are skilled at debating and have a nearly indefatigable desire to get that Reardon paper in there. Keep it up, and you'll eventually plough through uninvolved editors like me with your sheer persistence.) jæs (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Really? NY Times + Education Week + EPI paper + four books by other scholars -- not sufficient for you? Charleston Gazette, perhaps? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

A blog, a blurb, another primary source, and some quotes about the debate that mention Reardon in passing, all in the context of the larger Hoxby-Rothstein controversy. None mentioning Reardon further than as a footnote in the larger debate. But you're missing the point. You'll find it at wp:undue, although you clearly have no interest in even trying to justify why Reardon's viewpoint is biographically relevant to Hoxby. Again, though, I'll leave it to other editors at this point to either put up a fight for wp:blp or give in to your "campus access" list of ~~exhausting~~ exhaustive Reardon passing mention citations. jæs (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Soliciting other input

A bilateral dialogue above ends with a plea for input from others, and I concur on that score. An edit removed a passage about critique of Hoxby's work by another scholar (one of her department colleagues, in fact), on the basis of insufficient sourcing. I would be grateful to know whether the following sources are to be considered sufficient for this passage:

Paul Lee Thomas, 2009, Parental Choice?: A Critical Reconsideration of Choice and the Debate About Choice, IAP, p. 166
John Merrow, The Influence of Teachers: Reflections on Teaching and Leadership, p. 204
Paul Lee Thomas: Ignoring Poverty in the U.S.: The Corporate Takeover of Public Education, 2012, p. 162 (quoting several sentences from Reardon's piece)
Handbook of the Economics of Education, 2011, edited by Erik A. Hanushek, Stephen J. Machin, Ludger Woessmann, p. 553 (in chapter by Eric Bettinger)
Coverage in Education Week
Charleston Gazette
Paper by the Economic Policy Institute, hosted at the Education Research Information Center
article in the NYTimes

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like Nomoskedasticity would prefer this conversation continue at the article's talk page, so I've summarized the points I made above there if anyone would be willing to give this a second look. jæs (talk) 08:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Jon Ausman

Brought to my attention as it is currently at AfD -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Ausman. Subject of article is editing it (as identified by himself at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Jon_Ausman. Another editor and he are battling over between making the piece a puffy resume or hit job. Would appreciate someone looking at article and considering whether issues are so bad to merit immediate deletion, or at least whacking out the "controversies" and protecting it until AfD is completed. Thanks.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- I SNOW-closed this delete, it wasn't heading anywhere different. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Darrell Issa

This BLP was here a month ago. The talk page has discussed alot of material it seems. A New Yorker article covers alot of stuff, history. What material rises to the level worthy of inclusion? --Malerooster (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Material in the New Yorker is by itself worthy of inclusion. Adding to that is this article in the San Francisco Chronicle and this piece in Counterpunch. Binksternet (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

So we should or can include every bit of material in the article into the bio? Brillant. Feeding time is over. --Malerooster (talk) 02:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Paper does not usually refuse ink. That does not mean every iota written about a person rises to being useful for Wikipedia readers. That is why editors are called "editors." Collect (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Not seeing any evidence that there is a violation of WP:BLP here. The ironic symmetry of Issa having been a car thief before making millions selling car alarms has been written up by many journalists. He had an interesting and colorful past and a decent biography will say as much. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 03:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Never charged with being a "car thief" nor convicted of being a "car thief" so the idea that Wikipedia should in any way label him a "car thief" is clearly verboten by WP:BLP which is a pretty solid policy. Contentious allegations make for poor biographies. Collect (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Suicide of Amanda Todd

I feel there are recently deceased persons implications here. In the first place a coroner's court has yet to rule Amanda's death was a suicide, and in the second place the article is clearly in breach of guidelines published in Canada, the US and elsewhere regarding the responsible reporting of suicides to avoid copycat suicides such as appear to have been the case at Bridgend, UK, where an internet resource has been implicated.

Im ny view the article is not "encylopaedic", but rather a news story. It cannot possibly have pretensions to be encyclopaedic until the coroner's inquest has been published, and even then not until the inquest has been examined and reflected upon in reliable secondary sources. Meanwhile the article shoud be circumspect in reporting the facts and abide by ordinary journalistic standards, the more so because readers are likely to think it the more authoritative for being published in Wikipedia. In particular I feel it should be entitled "Death of Amanda Todd" until such time as the coroner has ruled and public sympathy for the case has abated somewhat.

I've argued these points in more detail at the Village Pump. JaniB (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As you have already been told, guidelines that media organizations adopt for themselves is not applicable here; an encyclopedia is not a newspaper, hence this "the article is not "encyclopedic" argument is quite ill-informed. This also really has no bearing on BLP policy, for painfully obvious reasons. Tarc (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Tarc, if you had bothered to look at my wikilinked recently deceased persons you would have seen it was WP:BDP which is part of BLP policy. JaniB (talk) 05:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't understand why the user posted this here as well at first, but I believe it was made more as a pointer to the proposals discussion. It is also specifically related to BLP policy since that policy covers recent deaths and notable suicides. In any case, I'll make my argument only if the article goes to AFD, otherwise it's a waste of time. Ryan Vesey 04:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll agree with Tarc that consensus was already clearly established at WP:VPR, and that regardless, this is by definition not a BLP. At this point, this seems to be forum shopping. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I made it clear from the outset I would eventually take this to a BLP notice-board. Moreover I was advised by a rep at the English chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation to do just this. To be clear, I mean to exhaust every avenue to raise this issue within Wikipedia. What would be your problem with that? Would you care to give an opinion about the merits of my proposal, to entitle the article "Death of Amanda Todd" and to make it compliant with guidelines designed to guard against copycat suicide? From your contribution at VP I gather you feel Wikipedia doesn't need to because the article doesn't make you personally feel suicidal. Would you care to clarify and expand that point of view? JaniB (talk) 05:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I already did that at the previous discussion. The "BDP" portion of the policy covers specific cases where the family or relatives of the recently-deceased person could be caused harm by an article, not where some nebulous "harm" could occur to some unknown "someone". The "BDP" policy is to cover cases like "John Doe committed suicide after he had sex with his daughter, Jane, and caused her to become pregnant", where Jane could be harmed by such an unsourced allegation. It is not for cases where you just posit some nebulous harm to happen to "someone out there". Regardless, however, please choose one place to have this discussion. Posting it all over the place, in hopes that those who disagree with you will get exhausted and eventually stop reposting their disagreement, is disruptive. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The first of my proposals concern reporting Amanda's death as a suicide, which certainly does impact on the privacy of the family and could harm them. Precisely for that reason coroners are reluctant to rule a death a suicide unless there is certainty. For example there may be implications for life insurance. So indeed there are BDP issues here. On the second proposal, presumably WP:BDP is not meant to be an exhaustive list of issues. Plainly the issue of contagion suicide hasn't been raised before in Wikipedia and the natural place to introduce any necessary policy would be in WP:BDP. To repeat, opening a BLP case here was the advice of an officer at the UK Wikimedia Foundation. To repeat, I want to be sure that I have exhausted all the possibilities within Wikipedia. The last of these I believe is too seek mediation. But for that all the parties involved have to agree to mediation. We can cross that bridge later. Meanwhile it would help on the road along that path if the community could hear your views as an administrator on what is proposed here, that the article is reanamed "Death of Amanda Todd" until such time as the death is indeed ruled a suicide and that it be made compliant with guidelines designed to protect against copycat suicide, which latter risk you may feel is nebulous but which is nevertheless a reality. JaniB (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, you're using the Wikipedia to propagate your own narrow-focused views on suicide and copycats and such, and are becoming increasingly shrill and combative when you find that pretty much no one around is jumping on-board. The girl committed suicide; that is FACT. No one cares if a bunch of Canadians are dragging their feet in crossing the t's and dotting the i's of the official report. It really doesn't help your case to cite the Wikimedia UK either as that chapter in some serious disrepute around here lately after a trustee was banned from this project, the chair resigned after being involved in a pay-for-PR scandal, etc... So don't think that dropping some sort of "the WMUK rubber-stamped my case" is a winning argument. Tarc (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know the UK branch of the Foundation that governs this project in is disrepute if that is indeed the case. The suicide of Amanda Todd is not a fact yet because it has yet to be ruled a suicide. It could equally prove to be a misadventure. The coroner was at pains to stress the investigation would be long and complicated. You reverted my edit noting this. The article is entitled to say that a preliminary investigation indicated it was a suicide, ought to mention that the investigation will be long and complex because that is what is recommeneded by the guidelines, and it can further remark that it has been widely reported as a suicide in the press providing that is supported by a citation that exactly says that (and that's not being obstructive because there are reliable sources that do note this). It's not entitled to report it as fact as it does from the start and in the infobox. I ask you to concentrate on the issues here and not about personalities. It's not about you and me. Are you prepared to enter a mediation process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaniB (talk • contribs)

Reliable sources report it as a suicide, that is all we go by. As for mediation, no. As I told you before, mediation is something reserved when sides on equal footing are at an impasse and cannot move forward. Mediation is not for a single person who cannot accept the fact that virtually all who have commented in this affair have told you "no". You're simply in "I didn't hear that" territory. Tarc (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I am just a bird guy, but what are we arguing? If reliable sources are calling or saying that this was a suicide, end of story, right? Good luck and sorry for my ignorance. --Malerooster (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It's about responsible reporting of current events, Malerooster. JaniB (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It is about reporting things that have actually happened, which in this case is a suicide. Tarc (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I agree with JaniB's contention that because Todd is recently deceased this is an appropriate place to have this discussion. As for the naming of the article, "Death of Amanda Todd" would be more neutral, but the death itself seems to have been overshadowed by the discussions that arose because of it, so that title seems awkward. In any case, JaniB is fighting a pointless battle because they have inadvertently touched the NOTCENSORED button. After that, no amount of reasonable argument will help. It may be more productive to look at strengthening the guideline for future cases, if there is support for that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I can see the point of renaming the article from "Suicide" to "Death", however I don't think that this noticeboard is the appropriate place to discuss it as there is already a more extensive conversation on village pump. This conversation should be shut down forthwith and interested editors pointed to the village pump discussion (or somewhere else if deemed more appropriate). This conversation here can be pushed to the village pump conversation. Keeping this conversation going here is forum shopping and should be discouraged. There should be one point of discussion on this topic and BLP\Noticeboard is not it. It may be the case that a policy change needs to be discussed, but again this is not the point of the noticeboard. JASpencer (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Bill Buchanan (computer scientist)

Bill Buchanan (computer scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've tagged this, and would appreciate input from other objective editors. Most of the article is composed of a list of publications, and much of the remaining text appears to constitute copyright infringement. I prefer backup before doing a drastic pruning. Thanks, 99.153.143.227 (talk) 14:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Depuffed. Collect (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like there is WAY too much technical stuff and diagrams for a bio like this. I would leave that stuff for the individual articles that cover that material, but that is just me. --Malerooster (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Aye. And a good portion of the remaining text appears to constitute copyright violation. COI is a good guess here. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Mark Driscoll (pastor)

In the article Mark Driscoll, who is a religious figure, there is a section called Beliefs. It is a summary of some of the more sensational beliefs of the topic. To obtain this information Google Docs has been used as a source (you cannot see what was sourced), as well as, his audio files, his church website, theresurgence website (his church), most of which at all sourced from Driscoll himself. Does this fall under WP:NOR? Do we remove the material per WP:ALIVE? Basileias (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Bob Saget

One of your editors posted about Bob Saget that "His comedy stinks." (sic).

It is a personal opinion about his work. Although I haven't listen to him, I know that Wikipedia does not tolerate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.224.215.226 (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It was reverted within seconds of being added. You must have caught it during the few seconds between when it was added and when it was reverted. This happens some times. --Jayron32 03:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Tara Donovan

While researching this artist, I noticed that the dates of the major events of her life have all been changed. For instance, it states: "Donovan received her BAW in 2021, and earned her MAWin 2029...". The dates of her accomplishments range from 2017-2036. I'm not a biographical expert, and I don't know the correct dates, but I thought it should be reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.133.46.128 (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I fixed it, it was vandalism from five days ago. Considering the time it took to get fix, the misleading edit summary of the vandal, and being a BLP I watchlisted the article as well. The next time you see something suspicious just check the history of the page, and if you see something drastically change, revert to the clean version. I'll do an IP welcome to help you out further. Thanks Secret ^account 06:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Jay Weatherill

Jay Weatherill is the Premier of South Australia. I have tried adding some allegations about Weatherill that are backed up by a published public court judgment. 2 other editors are deleting the edit that I added, which is just a copy and paste from one paragraph of the court judgement. I don't think it violates any policy. Can some editors from outside of South Australia, or outside of Australia please help. There is a lot of discussion on the talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jay_Weatherill#Kazimir_Kowalski_allegations Philiashasspots (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You need sources other than court documents for any such claims. Find a newspaper which reported on the case, but you can't use the court documents. Collect (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not referencing a court document, but a court decision from a very reliable source - a Supreme Court Judge - who would be considered by a normal person to be much more reliable than any newspaper reporter. Court decisions can be considered primary and secondary sources. The paragraph referenced was written by the judge after careful consideration of the evidence before him. Wikipedia has templates for citing court decisions [10] and AustLii and WorldLii are reliable sources Philiashasspots (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you think "court decisions" are, pray tell? And note that WP:BLP is very specific. We do have articles on historic decisions (Marbury v. Madison etc. which are not covered by WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Collect (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Eric Wicks

there is a bunch of new info on my page that someone put on there that is totatlly not true can you reset it to how it was. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.142.44.89 (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed some of the recently added nonsense from Eric Wicks. Is there anything specific that you think is still wrong? --Onorem ♠Dil 15:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

kanji daramy

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

he was wrongly said to have been sacked and it depicts a negative image of him. it would be kind if it was changed to allegedly or removed permanently — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maayah (talk • contribs) 19:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed -- but the article is totally unsourced... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Mohammed Morsi - Islam Denominations be Shown Next To Religion in Infobox?

I was told this was the correct place to post this, but I am uncertain. There seems to be disagreement over whether or not "Sunni Islam" or "Shia Islam" should be on a Muslim's infobox next to "Religion" or just "Islam". This has been occurring on the article of Mohammed Morsi. I believe there should be consistency, and there are many Muslim world leaders whose denominations are mentioned. There are also many whose denominations also aren't mentioned. I would like a consensus on whether or not it should be included. It shouldn't be as vague as "Islam". To many Arab countries, denominations can be very important.

There are many well known Muslim world leaders with their denominations mentioned, including Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan, Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa of Bahrain, Bashar al-Assad of Syria, Ali Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq, Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan, Mahmoud Abbas of Palestine, Emomalii Rahmon of Tajikstan, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of Indonesia, Former President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Najib Razak of Malaysia, Hamadi Jebali of Tunisia, Mohammed Magariaf and Ali Zeidan of Libya, Abdullah II of Jordan, Almazbek Atambayev of Kyrgyzstan, Najib Mikati of Lebanon, Yahya Jammeh of Gambia, and Former Palestinian President Yasser Arafat.

So that's my position on this.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe the "religion" field is supposed to be filled in with the broad religion: Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc. Some templates also have a "denomination" field, for careers where this matters. Do remember that there are specific requirements for filling in the religion field for living people. In most cases, it shouldn't even be filled in, unless the subject is a cleric of some sort, or their faith, with which they have verifiably self-identified, has been widely reported in the media. The correct place to detail religion and sect is generally in the article text, not the infobox, which is only supposed to summarize details already present and cited in the text of the article. Yworo (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

If the sect of a person greatly matters to them (and the test above - is the person either a cleric or is it both widely reported and self-identified is sufficient) then this should show. We don't say that the Pope is "Christian" but "Roman Catholic", the same standard should apply to other religions. To say that for example Bashar al-Assad is a Muslim rather than an Alawi would be misinforming the reader. If there's a belief that Islam should be treated differently from other large religions then this should be taken to a policy page. JASpencer (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Melanie Phillips

[11] (edit summary: Reverted - we don't have any problem on Wikipedia acknowledging that various Islamists terrorists were "influenced" by the writing/teaching of certain imams, nor that Taxi Drive influenced John Hinckley, Jr., for that matter) seeks to link Anders Breivik to Phillips. Several editors have suggested that the material, at best, belongs on the Breivik article, as it appears to be a coatrack in the Phillips BLP. Further eyes would help. The issue here is whether the edit summary accurately expresses the intent of WP:BLP -- that is, if someone says a living person "influenced" a mass murderer, is that a contentious claim about the living person which would require that living person to have known she was "influencing" the mass murderer? Collect (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Melanie Phillips quite detestable views have have probably influenced many many people. I doubt many of them have gone on a shooting spree. That one did and has decided to claim she influenced him belongs on his article not hers. I would agree its a bit coatracky for hers. The problem as I see it is that the Melanie Phillips BLP is set out as a thinly disguised attack article - 'Here is where her viewpoint on X has been criticised by source Y'. Unlike the other sections however, the edit sourced to The Week isnt about Melanie Phillips, its about why Breivik identifies with people who have views like Phillips (and Jeremy Clarkson). So I would say rip it out and let them put it in Breiviks. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Additionally - the source doesnt actually say she influenced him. And unlike the other sections under 'Views', she doesnt have a 'view' on Brevik. Her 'views' are being held as relevant to his actions. You might as well say Breviks 'Views' are why Melanie Phillips writes right-wing sludge. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Operation Yewtree

Should there be a standard approach to people who are named in Operation Yewtree?

As many of these already have Wikipedia pages, and there are likely to be a few people about to be named then perhaps we should have a standard response such ase:

Set page to Semi-Protect for two weeks
Mention that they were arrested in Operation Yew Tree with text along the lines of:
- x was arrested in Operation Yew Tree on suspicion of y on dd/mm/yyyy/

It seems that the main vandalism is from IPs and it seems to subside after a week. Also not mentioning the allegations tends to get registered users adding their own versions in with all sorts of BLP violations.

JASpencer (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

As a general rule BLP tries to avoid mentioning arrests unless it leads to a conviction or its otherwise a big deal. The problem with Yewtree is that EVERY arrest is going to be a big deal due to the Saville links and likely celebrity of the arrestee. Perhaps 2 weeks semi-prot and an article/talkpage template pointing at the BLP policy/s? Reputable organisations like the BBC have generally been going with 'Questioned/arrested a man in 60's/80's etc'. With the exception of Max Clifford recently. So the gaps are being filled in by less reputable sources. The recent BLP addition that was sourced to the David Icke (he of Lizard Overlord fame) forum was notable in its stupidity for this speculation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Naming a person with whom the topic has apparently so connexion seemed a tad "too too" here. I left in "unnamed" people, but think that sort of information is of no value at all to readers. Collect (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Pearlasia Gamboa

Pearlasia Gamboa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dominion of Melchizedek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I removed the name of a possible minor from this article based on concerns raised via OTRS. Without going into any specifics (which I obviously cannot do), the name of a purported child was removed under WP:BLPNAME as its inclusion is not necessary for the understanding of the article topic and relates to an otherwise private individual. The name was the only thing I removed from the article - the remainder of the material was left completely untouched. An IP has restored the name mentioning that it appears in reliable sources, however I don't see why we need to include the specific family member's name here as it not "relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject". --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

[N]ames of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced. None of the sources currently offered actually and verifiably states the person in question is her son. Several strike me as ureliable to start with. The submitter of one story cited, a "Pearl Asian," is not actually stated to be the subject, and any relationship is, of course, also unstated. Everything except a wedding announcement failed verification, so I removed the section. Though I didn't find anything, if reliable sources exist naming her children, they'd probably garner exactly one mention in this subject's personal life section. Compare Apple Martin and Aleph Portman-Millepied. JFHJr (㊟) 02:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I've also performed a similar edit at Dominion of Melchizedek. JFHJr (㊟) 04:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Philip Seeman

It seems like someone made this by themselves with little understanding of how Wikipedia works, and it's an impenetrable wall of text. I think it should probably either be completely overhauled or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exercisephys (talk • contribs) 17:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Current article appear to have been contributed by the subject himself. I suggest we revert to the last version before the subject touched it: [12]. Yworo (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Done and message left for the user.--ukexpat (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

False criminal claims against ATT

An IP address is repeatedly inserting the category "20th century criminals" at the article Amadou Toumani Touré [13]--this is probably because of the renewed attention to Mali's coup today. To the best of my knowledge, ATT hasn't been convicted of any crimes, and the article doesn't appear to have sources for this. Can someone else keep an eye on this for a bit? I reverted this twice, but now I need to go make my lunch. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Noel Malcolm

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

Some pretty poor behaviour cropping up here [14], [15], [16]. The talk page here [17] and here [18] shows a lack of understanding of WP:BLP. I will shortly be reported for being a "pro-Bosniak Anglo-Australian" and will need to defend my honour, so I'll sign off for now, but I suggest User:178.191.255.65 (whose whole edit history on WP has been an attack on Malcolm today) needs a tap on the shoulder. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

another revert has happened. No doubt someone will block (or at least ARBMAC warn) this IP, rather than my having to report this again as 3RR? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

This article has had some recent activity that might need some further attention. A "criticism" section has been added, mainly on the basis of this source: http://www.kosovo.net/nmalk6.html -- I doubt that one will meet WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

it may now that it has been clarified, but the article appears to be developing some characteristics of an "attack article" based on the published views of historians from the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences. The article seems to me to lack neutrality and balance. No attempt appears to have been made to locate sources that praise Malcolm's work on Kosovo, and there are a lot of weasel words creeping in. Could someone with BLP experience please have a close look at what is going on? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed a criticism section that lacked appropriately reliable sources. I also left an explanation at talk. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Help appreciated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Evangelos Marinakis

I would appreciate several pairs of eyes reviewing this article and the information on the talk page. I am assisting somewhat in addressing concerns raised about this article, but I know nothing about the topic. Any assistance is appreciated. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Tim Blixseth

This rather long BLP could use some eyes and some editing to correct text like this (below) which is present throughout the article:

Blixseth's is a rags to riches and back again story involving government land schemes, Hollywood and courtroom dramas, high finance and political intrigue.
His father was a disabled minister and the family was dependent on welfare. Blixseth claimed he was so poor, that he "ate spam" five days a week or shot his own food using his father's gun. As a child, Blixseth recounted his family being the victim of a financial scam, but lacking the financial resources to afford legal aid to go after the con artists. His family raised him in a self-described "local cult" called the Jesus Name of Oneness Church—a Oneness Pentecostalism sect.
Blixseth's third divorce to wife Edra Denise Crocker was first touted in 2009 as a case study in amicable separations where the two hashed out their agreement over wine at a Hollywood hotel without attorneys.[80] However, wife Edra and creditors later claimed Blixseth duped her into taking on debt encumbered assets while keeping cash and siphoning off liquid assets for himself.

Among many other things there are serious violations of WP:BLPNAME. I've started on it but could use some help. Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed some of the most egregious stuff - including BLP violations, use of unsourced claims or claims sourced to special interest groups and not from third-party sources, and quotes from court documents. All in all -- pretty much a mess of a biography. Replete with "claimed", "however" "yet" and the like. Collect (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to those that visited and did some clean up there. There is still more to do over the coming days. I'll try to help too.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Ibrahima Iyane Thiam

An editor claiming to be the subject of this article, User:Ibrahima.iyane.thiam, says that there are multiple errors in the article and his attempts to correct them have all been reverted. I'm not sure how to proceed in this situation, so I have brought it here for review. Peacock (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Requesting review of Paul Pozonsky

72.42.157.201 (talk · contribs) has removed material from Paul Pozonsky a few times, saying "changes made due to obvious discriminatory statements for which he is liable for defamation. This page is meant only to destroy ones reputation" and "changes made due to obvious discriminatory statements for which he is liable for defamation. This page is meant only to destroy ones reputation." I hadn't noticed these comments before, and I'd like the community's input on the article and whether any BLP action ought to be taken. Read the article and see where the IP is located. Out of an abundance of caution, perhaps it ought to be handled.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Pretty thin on notability in my book. Unusual behavior in a sentencing hearing, and an incomplete criminal investigation. I think you've done a pretty good job of neutral phrasing, but the selection of facts included smacks of WP:UNDUE. Is there anything else to say of the man? If not, I'm not sure there's enough for a biography. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 07:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking at it. I gave it my best shot to include as much non-investigation material as possible. I made some changes to minimize the investigation in the article, while still noting the actual events. Still, I would be supportive of deleting it, for now.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Martin Garrick

The article seems highly biased in favor of Mr. Garrick and is written like a campaign website — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.246.175 (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems outdated—Martin Garrick is not an assemblyman anymore. Ruslik_[[User

Talk:Ruslik0|Zero]] 19:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a ludicrous promotional article that deserves to be stripped back to basic biographical facts. Bluehotel (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Pruned autobiography and updated it to past tense on Assembly membership. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

David Tait

WP:BDP applies. I'm going offline now, so please could other editors keep an eye on this article for editors saying Tait's death was an accident or suicide, as nothing can be confirmed as yet. Please also watch out for the use of the apparent suicide of Tait's father and a team-mate as means of insinuating that Tait must have followed suit. --Dweller (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Şerban Nichifor

First question: is using this image, scanned by User:Snichifor (i.e., the subject of the biography), acceptable to demonstrate he won the award in question? I mean, it could be a fake, in theory.

Second question (this person died last year, but I may as well roll up my complaints into one): Nichifor or a variety of IPs which are probably he has relentlessly made some detrimental edits to the biography of his late wife, Liana Alexandra. Could someone besides me try to convince him that this and this are not reliable sources and should stop being reinserted into the article; and that this image, no matter how vehemently he insists to the contrary, belongs not in the article but in the linked Commons category, given that few have heard of ACMEOR and none have established that their prizes have any encyclopedic significance? - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

See "Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians" [19] which appears to confirm the award, and appears to meet WP:RS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your looking into this, but the entry, at least what I can see from it, appears to confirm neither than Nichifor won the Belgian Order of the Crown, nor that voxnovus.com or romania-on-line.net are reliable sources, nor that a prize from ACMEOR is worthy of reproducing in an encyclopedic article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

WRT the ACEMOR award (the one item I addressed) -- if a specialised work which is RS deems it reportable, so does Wikipedia. We are not sufficiently omniscient to rule that an award is "not notable" which is reported in a reliable source specialising in the field. No opinion on the other stuff -- but first glance is that the participants in the voxnovus site are likely to be notable by Wikipedia standards. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Noah Musingku

Hello. :) The Wikimedia Foundation has received a letter about this article disputing its neutrality. The issue concerns whether criticism is proportionate in the article and whether assertions are properly sourced. I see it's had some problem tags for almost two years now. Wikimedia Foundation staff are not able to make such evaluations or change the content, but may ask that community assess it and make any repairs that may be needed. I've been asked, accordingly, to bring it to you. It would be much appreciated if experienced Wikipedians could evaluate the article and, if you do find problems, bring it in line with policy. Can you help? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I am having trouble finding enough reliable sources to support this article per Wikipedia's WP:BIO requirements, and what is here does not seem to pass WP:BLP muster. This article should probably be AFD'd. Zad68 19:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I have CSD'd it as an attack page. Zad68 19:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Wherever it goes, thank you very much for your prompt attention to it. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't meet the CSD10 criteria. Perhaps AfD is an option -- but these sources will have to be considered. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, G10 requires "... and unsourced." I guess I was under the mistaken impression that obviously unacceptable sources shouldn't get past that requirement. It needs a complete rewrite. It might be an AFD as about a notable person but obviously unacceptable in current form. Zad68 19:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You'll see that there have been attempts by a number of editors (or perhaps one editor using a number of different accounts in succession) to make significant changes to this article (and to related articles) but without sources (and sometimes masquerading as minor spelling changes). These attempts have been reverted. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

They're all the same person as the initial creator. People should also consider the article U-Vistract, which repeats much of the same content. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

This goes back to at least 2009, see the deleted contribs of this user (admin only). I remember looking for reliable sources then. As I recall the "con man" assertion was widely reported as part of the UVistract pyramid scheme, but there wasn't enough for balance. Maybe there's more information now, but the current article doesn't leave me hopeful. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I did a clean-up of some of the worst of it. It needs more, but I do not want to be known as a cleaver-wielder <g>. Collect (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You removed some perfectly reasonable sourced material. I have reverted this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

If it's an undue weight problem, removing sourced material may be necessary. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Amazingly enough, I find Wikipedia calling a person a "con man" is likely to be a contentious claim. The sourcing is, IMO, insufficient for the claim made, and I was absolutely required to remove it. Calling it "perfectly reasonable" is not likely to comport with WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could indicate what you find lacking in the Sydney Morning Herald or the Fiji Times? Where I think you're really quite vulnerable here, Collect, is that you've deleted not only the text but the references as well. You've left the article in a state where the vast majority of the references are to the "Papala Chronicles"; do you really think that is more in line with BLP? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

And I removed a lot of that "stuff" as well if you read my edits -- I am suspicious as th whether the "king" is notable per se. Note that I removed about 20% of the "biography" and quite clearly suggested that even more be cut. Collect (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Papala Chronicles, I'm concerned with how the article is using them. They appear to be publications controlled or directed by Musingku himself and fall close to WP:SELFPUB WP:ABOUTSELF. They're no basis at all for writing a WP:BLP. Zad68 19:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course they're self-published, and fail WP:RS. And yet we have editors here who appear to want an article based on that source instead of on sources like the Sydney Morning Herald. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This is unusual case in which the more responsible sources use the most incendiary language. It's actually not easy to find a reliable source that doesn't refer to him a con man or something similar. Consider the Google Scholar hits for the subject and his principal program. We're going to have to find a way incorporate this negative content in a neutral manner if we're going to have this article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any thoughts on which sources seem particularly appropriate/usable here? My preferences would be the Sydney Morning Herald, an article in Ethnopolitics, and the article in Asian Survey, all of which use "con man" in an unequivocal way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Jake Adelstein

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

The lawsuit with National Geographic was settled out of court under agreement that the details would not be discussed. There is a copy of the filing somewhere in cyberspace. The repeated attempts by one disgruntled journalist to snip such as referencing an article about teaching English to children written in the year 2000 while I was at the Yomiuri which is certainly not my representative work are slightly annoying and a misrepresentation. The title "Claims About The Yakuza" also implies that I'm not credible on the subject and prescient. The Obama Executive order declaring the yakuza a transcontinental organized crime group and the Department of Treasury sanctions against the Yamaguchi-gumi and Sumiyoshi-kai would also indicate that they are taken seriously as an organized crime group. "The Yakuza" itself is a very broad term for 22 different organized crime groups in Japan. They are not like the Mexican mafia and kill great numbers of civilians, but they do kill. The Mayor Of Nagasaki was assassinated by a Yamaguchi-gumi member in 2007. In 2006, Goto-gumi members killed a real estate dealer and it took almost five years for the police to make an arrest.

If the editors would like to look chronologically at what I've written for The Atlantic Wire say from June of 2011 until the present--you can see what were first dismissed as unsubstantiated claims that 1) yakuza were supplying labor to TEPCO 2) the Tokyo Prosecutor's office was investigating the company (TEPCO) for criminal negligence 3) the firm would be nationalized---all of these things turned out to be correct and as I reported them, way ahead of the curve. I'm not perfect so sometimes I get the story wrong--most of the time I get it right.

There is a lot I would like to say about National Geographic Television which is controlled by NewsCorp--which has recently demonstrated severe violations of all journalist standards but, as there is a settlement I cannot. I'M probably much more agreeable to deal with than their lawyers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.224.216.253 (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you kept the entry neutral and factual or substantiated each line with a valid reference.

The Section "Claims About The Yakuza" itself is poorly researched and title is misleading. Numerous reference materials show that the Yakuza do kill public figures and that Goto's organization was particularly adept at it.

Andrew Rankin is misquoted in the article. I'm not sure of how much of a yakuza expert he is since most of his sources are secondary. As an academic researcher he is good. Peter Hill was the best in the field.

The National Geographic lawsuit was settled out of court, the repeated insertions of what happened are distorted, and not substantiated with reference sources.

There is a mutual non-disclosure aspect to the settlement. National Geographic Channel is owned by NewsCorporation. Their have been a number of complaints made about NGC's journalism practices.

Please see http://societymatters.org for articles about NGC staging scenes and violating the trust of those working with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.224.216.253 (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Article tag "Living people" of János Bókai

I'm a total amateur regarding Wikipedia editing, so I would like to bring it up here: the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A1nos_B%C3%B3kai is tagged as "Living people". János Bókai (Sr.) is certainly not a living person: as can be seen on the Hungarian Wiki page http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%B3kay_J%C3%A1nos_id. he lived in the 19th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.150.120 (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

True. Found a clear reference for him living in 1865, so BLP presumes him to be dead even without a source otherwise. Collect (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Kerry and Kay Danes

Recently, one of the subjects of this article (Kay Danes) has indicated dissatisfaction with the articles content. I have been talking to her on the Talkpage where she has shown the abiltiy to discuss the problems calmly so no problem in that area.

The main problem arises in that much of what she wants to include is not publicly available, is personal knowledge or is I believe irrelevant. Another problem is that she maintains that the article should make clear that all the charges against her and her husband were illegal under Laotion and International Law. Unfortunately Laos did not become a signatory to, or impliment International Law treaties or obligations until after her trial and I have no idea if the charges were illegal under Laos law at the time of the trial. The article itself makes it clear that the Danes were innocent and merely victims of the Laos system.

I first submitted this question to the foundation response team and they have asked me to request editors here to vet the article content for concerns. I may be wrong in some of my replies to her regarding WP policies so your help would be appreciated.

You can read the discussion here. Wayne (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

User:WLRoss.... you say that you have concerns with the legal aspects. You need only read the 317 page book of legal evidence that was compiled the the Australian Government and the Lawyers (Tzovaras Legal) and coupled with Lao law (http://www.kaydanes.com/legals.html) where several articles of various penal codes were clearly violated. As in accordance with International law, it can be successfully argued, and there are precedented cases, that agreements in principle can be upheld in a court of law. The Laos Government signed the UN Declaration of Human Rights, as an example, on 07 December 2000 (13 days prior to our unlawful detainment). Thereby committing themselves to an agreement in principle to abide by International law; that such an agreement will be ratified and put into legislation. I put it to you that the argument against is weak in the fact that daily torture was inflicted on my husband and myself and other prisoners in that jail. Laos says it doesn't torture anyone, are we to believe that simply because they say so? Kay and Kerry Danes (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Obviously we can't include a 317 page list of evidence so we have to cover it as best we can. That means giving a ballanced overview. We need more input to determine if the article is ballanced and NPOV per Wikipedia guidelines and find what changes are required. This is why I have brought the problem to this noticeboard. Wayne (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless a previously published reliable, third party source or two actually describes something as "illegal," the issue is a non-starter. Legal analysis is never actually supported by a citation to the law itself; it's synthesis and/or original research. I'll note the "Background" section is hugely heavy on claims about other living persons, and is entirely unsourced. Otherwise, I've removed lots of cites to crap sources, mostly WP:BLPSPS but some outright unreliable and irrelevant sources, and I've tagged sections needing citations. JFHJr (㊟) 02:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

As an interim measure I've near-stubbed the article, which was incredibly poorly written anyway, and ask all editors to proceed very slowly in terms of bringing material back into the story. I'd like to remind everyone that BLP is a much more important policy than COI, so it is more important that we do the right thing by the subjects of the article than that we worry about the COI too much.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I was afraid to do exactly what Jimbo just did. Not my area, but it was the worst BLP I had ever seen. Huge chunks (well...almost the entire article) were unsourced! A huge thank you to Jimbo!--Amadscientist (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Kerry and Kay Danes

This caught my eye from Jimbo's talkpage. Exceedingly long discussion on the talk page from an editor claiming to be one of the subjects. I believe we need a lot more eyes on this article. For a BLP, it is overloaded with unsourced material.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There's already a discussion above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- My fault for skimming through the list so fast! Thanks. It looks like this one Jimbo has taken under his wing so...with that I bid you a good night!--Amadscientist (talk) 07:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

William Agee

Defamatory and libelous information was removed by senior editors from this article in March. It has been added again by person(s) with an persistent malicious intent. I removed the offending material and two short refs that didn't have an original source Ref. If there is a process by which this article can be routinely monitored for further repeat offenses, this would be very helpful in maintaining integrity of the article. Thank you. Grateful41 (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed misused source (Mary Cunningjam interview) which did not support claims made, Who's Who puff removed per WP:RS and RSN discussions in the past, parenthetical claims made without an actual reliable source but placed in references section removed. Collect (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

We have no "senior editors". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Questionable bot edits of Aldous Huxley by User:JYBot

I am not sure if this is the right place to come but User:JYBot has been adding the category {{war:Aldous Huxley}} to the BLP Aldous Huxley in contravention of Wikipedia:Bot policy Assignment of person categories should not be made using a bot. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC).

Did you even look at what you were reverting over and over? This is an interwiki language link. It is not a category. The link you've been removing is to the Waray-Waray language version of the article. It is you who is vandalizing the article. Please stop now. JFHJr (㊟) 15:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

And why you would post here about a very dead subject is also beyond me. This forum is for problems with biographies of living persons. That's the L in BLP. JFHJr (㊟) 15:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to have offended you. There was no explanation for the edit and I was not aware that war referred to a language. I thought it might be an inappropriate political statement. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC).

Three different bots added the new language category from the Philippines and you reverted all three of them. Language links have been repeatedly added to this article by Xqbot, JackieBot, JYBot and AvicBot. Their edit summaries all have clickable links. Next time please click on the link. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Alistair McAlpine, Baron McAlpine of West Green

User:Alrewas added a highly libellous allegation to this article. I have deleted it, but the edit history needs to be removed. -- Alarics (talk) 08:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Now he's alluding to further criminal activities. I've reverted back to the last page before the allegations were made, but could the history be removed? JASpencer (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Satoshi Kanazawa

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

Scythian77 (talk · contribs) wants our article to say that Kanazawa once promoted a "nuclear Holocaust", despite there being no source that uses that phrase in reference to him (certainly not the source currently in use). I have reverted this (and warned per WP:OR), but Scythian immediately put it back. I don't intend to edit-war on it; instead I invite others to consider whether it belongs in the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Not only does it not belong in the article, there were other similar problems with the section. The title "Muslim holocaust" was unwarranted. The wording in the intro before the offending sentence was also unsupported. The word "Muslim" is not even mentioned in the source. There's no basis for over-interpreting what Kanazawa said; the quote speaks for itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Catullo

- Post by IP about article Dan Catullo
- - Daniel Catullo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  - - 64.134.220.150 (talk · contribs)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Post_by_IP_with_complaint_about_Dan_Catullo, I'll defer to judgment of the admins about this, just referring here as a user brought my attention to it from a post to my user talk page. Thanks, — Cirt (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hideki Matsui

In the article it states Matsui told a story on an edition of Yes Network's CenterStage about being a right handed hitter as a child. To the best of my knowledge and all research, Matsui has never appeared on CenterStage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.68.19 (talk • contribs)

A source (Whiting, Robert (2004). The Samurai Way of Baseball. New York: Warner Books. p. 233.) is cited for the full story at the end of the relevant paragraph. elvenscout742 (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Michael Tawiah

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

Please continue at Talk:Michael Tawiah and remember WP:CIVIL.--ukexpat (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

I want to report a Vandalism act considering the version of the article about my michael tawiah.The user Oleola is writing facts which are not true.i want help blocked him from editting on michael article as he already blocked me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ananenkova (talk • contribs)

I assume the edit in question is this one. The source is in Bulgarian; I've checked it via google translate -- the site appears to be the official site for the team, and it appears to confirm the assertion that he was released for medical reasons. I have no particular interest in seeing that material retained, but I'm not sure it's vandalism. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi am her--Ananenkova (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC) husband what was writing there is wrong please kidding remove that from there we already talked about that consigning that on the website but that cant not be remove so i agree with that.looking forward hearing from you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ananenkova (talk • contribs) 13:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It would help if you could, somehow, write more clearly - do you have a friend who could help? The Google translation of the cited web page reads: "The coach explained to the media that medical problems cause the release of Michael Teviya and Ibrahim Aka". Is Michael Teviya the same person as Michael Tawiah? —SMALL JIM 15:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I have been asked on my talk page to help here with translation from Bulgaria. I can confirm that the translation above is correct, chernomoretz.bg is the official site of the club and monitor.bg is the site of one of the big Bulgarian newspapers. If you need more information just contact me on my talk page again. --Nk (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

hi Smalljim,am the real michael tawiah please what was writen about me there is wrong if this guy need information he need to contact me and stop posting things he dont know on my wikipedia.Yea same michael teviya,you know what happen Smalljim? this club wanted to sign me okay so we having problems about the contract between me and them about the money and the years they wanted so i decide to leave if they cant pay what i want, so they decide to write bullshit about me on the internet cause i leave them to sign for new club if i have problems with medical i would not sign with this club am playing now. but what was writen on the net can not be remove so me and them have already sloved that problem am playing,so please kidding hlep me out on artcile i can give you more information if needed thanks--Ananenkova (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I have removed that sentence, on the basis that it was supported only by a primary source (the club's own website). If there are secondary sources for it, it can be re-added -- but I can see why we wouldn't want to retain it only on the basis of what the club says. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

--Ananenkova (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)smalljim,thanks you very much dont know wat to say to you,thanks

The thanks are due to Nomoskedasticity, who dealt with this before I saw it. —SMALL JIM 22:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Smalljim and Nomoskedasticity this morning it has been putting there again can u take care of that for me and stop this user of doing that.thanks--Ananenkova (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This time it was added with a secondary source, a brief article in what appears to be a Bulgarian newspaper. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up: My advice is that you request that the article be deleted. This should be done by making contact as per these instructions. After you have written to request this, post again here and I will nominate it for deletion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

but please how can i fine that i mean where to request it?i dont know more about this page --Ananenkova (talk) 11:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Okay i have done it as you told me to requst the article delete.--Ananenkova (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said: post here again once you have had a response to the message you sent to that email address. Getting a response might take a couple of days (but who knows, perhaps it will come sooner). I haven't been involved previously in this sort of thing, but my understanding is that they will provide you with a "ticket number" -- once they do, please give that number here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have removed further unreferenced information and tagged for improvement. Giant Snowman 11:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I have asked User:Oleola, the other party, to comment here. —SMALL JIM 11:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Oleola's edits appear fine to me. Giant Snowman 11:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, though his ~~persistent~~ continued reverting with no attempt at discussion was perhaps not optimal. Anyway, I reckon he should be given the opportunity to comment in light of the new information that has emerged here, whatever its validity. —SMALL JIM 12:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

this is what i recive after i sent the messge. This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (Decemb--Ananenkova (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ananenkova, what I have in mind is that you send an email to the following address: [email protected]. They will correspond with you privately to establish that you are in fact the subject of the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity i have sent it--Ananenkova (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

After I was asked to comment, I just wanna say that this editor can not be trusted as he constantly forged club statistics in this article using variable IPs and account User:Startawiah4--Oleola (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC) yea you Oleola yea that was my husband he try that user address.can u please remove that about his medical problem as i explian what happen with him and the club thanks--Ananenkova (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Note - Ananenkova has claimed in this thread to be both Tawiah and his wife. Giant Snowman 13:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Giantsnowman u getting it wrong read what i post there,if u what prove i can prove it to you,send me your email.--Ananenkova (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you have claimed to be two different people linked to Tawiah - which one is correct, if any? Giant Snowman 14:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

you serioues?--Ananenkova (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep - especially as you've just admitted to being his wife before retracting it - despite previously saying that you were "the real michael tawiah". At this moment I cannot believe that you are either, and I cannot believe anything you say. There is also nothing wrong with the article. Giant Snowman 14:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ananenkova, if you are not Michael Tawiah then you should not write to that email address on his behalf. I also agree that there is nothing obviously wrong with the article itself at this stage. If the subject wants it deleted and contacts Wikipedia to say so (via the instructions given), we can take it from there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2012 (UT

yea cuase he was here with me when when i was talking to you guys so he didcede to write by him self,as am talking to you right now he is even here watching tv.if u have skype send me to prove to you am tired of all this do what u guys want bye--Ananenkova (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC) if you think is not true why am i doing all thees?i can also put things there which are false true right?--Ananenkova (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies reliable sources to verify all claims, especially those regarding living people. Do you have any? Giant Snowman 15:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Giantsnowman i cant get it right can you please make it clear for me? this things put on the website we have deal with them already.if all this things are true i will not mind but is not.that is why we angry,you dont even know michael is married right?.--Ananenkova (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

We don't know about the marital statuses of many people, as it is not relevant to their notability and therefore unlikely to be covered in any depth by reliable, third-party sources. Giant Snowman 15:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

okay thank a tired of all what happening here can u please remove this article from there?--Ananenkova (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean remove the whole Wikipedia entry on Michael Tawiah, or do you want us to remove the web article that you disagree with? Giant Snowman 15:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

no only the article that have been disagree only that leave the rest i can send u more information if nedded.--Ananenkova (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If you don't believe that the external article is correct, or that it is not worthy of inclusion, then you should use the article talk page to state your case. If you have other reliable sources then please feel free to include them. Giant Snowman 16:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

how can i do that?can u please talk to Oleola he is the one behind all this.--Ananenkova (talk) 16:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Simply provide a link to the webpage in question. Giant Snowman 16:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Can I suggest that this discussion continue at Talk:Michael Tawiah. There does not appear to be a BLP violation that needs further discussion here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

yea Nomoskedasticity but am still suprise why this cant be remove from there.what is it to you oleola?u get something out from it?.--Ananenkova (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Mark Rathbun

A new editor is trying to add the fact that the subject Mark Rathbun, is unemployed. I don't know if this falls afoul of BLP, but the article seems to rely heavily on a blog from the Village Voice. I've engaged the editor in question, but I was hoping someone more knowledgable about BLP stick their beak in, as I don't have the time. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 19:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The blog - http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/09/marty_rathbun_top_25_crippling_scientology.php - Its totally undue in my interpretation of BLP - unemployed is not an occupation - and the word unemployed is not even mentioned in the blog till a comment - really, totally undue and in my interpretation of BLP a clear violation that if repeated again should be blockable - Youreallycan 20:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

An even more serious problem is the repeated attempt to add this website to the infobox. I'm afraid Burntsierra754 (talk · contribs) has quite an agenda here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes - please , any admin block Burntsierra754 (talk · contribs) on sight - for any BLP violating edit - Youreallycan 21:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

He may have an agenda, but at least he stopped editing after he was asked too. Let's give him a chance before asking for blocks, ok? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 01:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No one is asking for blocks for his past contributions - however, he has been notified of all the discussion points - if he makes another WP:BLP violating edit such as adding that attack site external link to the infobox, under the circumstances he could and imo should be blocked on sight. - Youreallycan 05:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Ferdinand Topacio

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

Extensive IP edits and possible BLP violations; many of the sources appear questionable. Heading to bed soon; some help looking it over and getting things under control would be appreciated. VQuakr (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I had a quick look and removed a rumor and the pic and a youtube link - there has been some typical POV editing, although he does to be a seem controversial character - Youreallycan 06:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Carol M Black

The Wikipedia page for Carol M Black includes a section labelled as NPOV. The Talk page doesn't seem to provide any information about how this warning got there or why; there is no ongoing discussion as indicated in the NPOV policy.

If there is no discussion then can we assume that there is no dispute to be resolved, and therefore remove the warning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:212:100:D69A:20FF:FEFD:B6A0 (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The whole thing reads like a c.v. or a resume and needs (1) to be rewritten in a more encyclopedic manner and to conform to WP:MOSBIO, (2) addition references to support notability.--ukexpat (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That may be so but my query was about the propriety of removing the warning, given that these warnings are meant to be temporary while a dispute is resolved. 2001:630:212:100:D69A:20FF:FEFD:B6A0 (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

And that temporary time could last for a while if noone addresses the concerns. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Natacha Peyre requests deletion of our article about her

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natacha Peyre. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Really? Why are you supportive of deletion for this person who requests it but not for Jim Hawkins? Tarc (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that I am supportive of the deletion of Natacha Peyre. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No evidence, then? Will you now apologise for your edit-summary accusation of hypocrisy? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Wesley Snipes

Usual silliness from his critics. Claiming that he is retired (no longer active) due to his not being able to shoot while in prison.User talk:Unfriend12 22:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Who has said he is retired? He is in jail and even he, Wesley Snipes, has said he is not active. --Sonic2030 (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

user talk:Jimbo Wales#BLP - I am also saddened that no other editors joined the article talk page.User talk:Unfriend12 15:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC) Edit for typo.User talk:Unfriend12 15:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

2 more editors have joined the discussion, but a response in specific reference to the wp:BLP issue might prove helpful... if I am wrong about this being a BLP issue, it would certainly help me.User talk:Unfriend12 17:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it seems accurate to say that he is inactive, but it wouldn't be accurate to say he is retired. If the template doesn't make that distinction, it should. --Onorem ♠Dil 17:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you,Onorem. That is made clear (that he is in jail and not filming) in the article. Another editor pointed out, however, that he might be active... perhaps writing... while in prison. He is rumored to be active in planning and negotiating future work... but I have removed those rumors as well, citing wp:BLP, since the people rumored to be working with him might be damaged by the statement that they were working with a convict.User talk:Unfriend12 18:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

He might, perhaps, be writing? Is there any source that suggests that he is? The intro doesn't suggest that he's a writer. He isn't acting. He isn't producing. I suppose incarceration doesn't impact martial art status. How is he active exactly? Even if there was a source for him writing, is that notable? Does that make him active? --Onorem ♠Dil 18:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The issue is a change to his infobox indicating that his years-active end at 2010. This is a retrospective item in an infobox. To say that his career ended... that his years active ended in 2010... could be financially damaging to him, his movie shops, his family, his heirs. Thus, wp:BLP applies, with its requirement for strong sourcing.User talk:Unfriend12 18:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you Onorem that he is inactive. The ONLY person who keeps bringing up the "retired" part is Unfriend12. Retired was never part of the info box. It only has Status: XXXX - XXXX. Unfriend12 keeps trying to make it XXXX - Present but as you said seems accurate to say he is inactive. --Sonic2030 (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Since I doubt he has announced (in a reliable source) that he has retired, it is probably safe to assume he intends to resume his career at the next opportunity once he is released from prison. After all, actors don't retire just because they are temporarily unable to get work and instead have to wait tables. Astronaut (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but Unfriend12 is the obnly one that used the retire word. This is only really about the Status bar in the info box for W.Snipes. I believe it should say 1986-2010 the years he is active. Unfriend12 says it shoudl say he is currently active even though he is not. See this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wesley_Snipes#Inactive.3F --Sonic2030 (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Info boxes should not be used when there are complicated on-the-ground situations that are not suitable for easy translation into bite sized facts. There is nothing to be gained by trying to box this complicated situation with many unknowns into a plain listing of dates. Any such attempt is fraught with WP:CRYSTAL issues. Per BLP we do not force something into a box that is likely to misrepresent some aspect and doesn't fully express the story. The "dates active" should not be a part of this Living Persons info box. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

How would it be "complicated"? He is currently inactive and when he is released he may become active again? Other people, TV shows, etc... with breaks list them that way. Should family guy show active when they were not on TV or have a break with the year they were active on TV? Same with other pages that show breaks when the show, person, etc... has a break. If so then a LOT of pages need to be re-written. --Sonic2030 (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Uncomplicated: leave it out of the infobox and put it in the article. Complicated: a dispute about whether the infobox should be used. It seems clear that the information you want to introduce into the article is covered in the text. It also seems clear that there are different interpretations as to what "years active" in the infobox means.User talk:Unfriend12 20:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing complicated about this, other than you trying to make it so. Its pretty straight forward. He is currently inactive but may become active later. As such it has the correct information for now. --Sonic2030 (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It does, indeed. This discussion is about adding 2010 to the infobox. The article at this time covers the information that he is in prison and not filming anything, and quite thoroughly.User talk:Unfriend12 20:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This seems overwrought. The contested material is simply "years_active = 1986–2010". There's no reason why someone can't add a ", 2013-present" next year. Wnt (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems odd to add a date to the end when he is just in prison and will be released. This seems to be contentious in that it aims to make a prediction andI would assume that an extraodinary claim would have mulitple RS to support that he does not intend to act ever again before claiming a close to his career.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds to me like you're making a prediction. The point of the box is to tell readers when he was active making movies. After all, even someone who is actually old and actually retired from making movies might still come out and make a movie tomorrow anyway, if the project is right - should we not list an end date for them either? Wnt (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct, we shouldnt. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Manti Te'o biography

Manti Te'o biography contains profanity and libelous material — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.145.107 (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Puerile vandalism, now reverted.--ukexpat (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Gail Riplinger

The Gail Riplinger article is being used to attack the subject again, this time by a contentious editor who went so far as going after another editor on the article page itself.[20] Other editors seem to be watching it, but more eyes would be useful (along with someone familiar with Wikipedia:Notability (academics) to determine whether the subject is even notable enough for an article). First Light (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

4im warning issued for personal attacks.--ukexpat (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Can an admin please delete Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/G._A._Riplinger ? User:Yeoberry submitted it including the BLP violations that have been repeatedly reverted. I've already deleted the same material from their talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Yeoberry has contested the deletion and re-pasted the "true" version of the article back at Talk:Gail Riplinger#Comment from Yeoberry, with the comment that "Below is what the article should look like with responses to your totalitarian attempts to suppress the truth:". I think this needs some admin intervention, since multiple warnings have not stopped them. Their talk page history indicates that this is a pattern. First Light (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Amir Abbas Fakhravar

There are a number of issues regarding the subject's wikipedia page which require potentially substantial edits:

(1) Most of the biography and much of the content on the page is based on an article in Front Page Magazine which is unlikely a reliable source, particularly since the article makes it unclear where the information is coming from. Front Page Mag is also not a reputable source. It's more fashioned as an opinion blog with a conservative bend (see for example an article they published called "How the Left Conquered Wikipedia": http://frontpagemag.com/2011/david-swindle/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/") Lastly, the article itself, titled "One Day in the Life of Amir Abbas Fakhravar" is no longer available on the website and impossible to verify (the subject's page cites to this dead link: archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=28847). My overall suggestion is to remove any content that cites to the Front Page Mag article, particularly since we can no longer access the article, unless of course the information can be corroborated from some other source.

(2) The imprisonment section is confusing. Many of the imprisonment dates can not be verified. Both Amnesty International^[1] and PEN International^[2] suggest that Fakhavar's only arrest occurred on November 10, 2002, for defaming the Supreme Leader of Iran in his book "This Place is Not a Ditch". They both then state that on February 8, 2004 Fakhavar was allowed to temporary leave and taken back into custody two days later. There is nothing to verify (and no sources are given) the suggestion that Fakhavar was arrested "several times" between 1993 to 2005. My recommendation is to rewrite the imprisonment section to make sure it is consistent with the information from Amnesty and PEN International.

(3) The "In United States" or the "controversy" section should be modified to include criticisms that Fakhavar is being groomed by neo-conservatives to being the next Chalabi. This was the subject of an article in Mother Jones^[3], the Los Angeles Times^[4], the Telegraph^[5] and others. It seems significant in light of the numerous criticisms that the subject has received from other prominent Iranian human rights victims and dissidents, including Ahmad Batebi.^[6]

(4) The Iran Democratic Transition Conference would benefit from shortening. Almost all of it is comprised of a copy and paste job from the website of the subject's organization and much of it is simply a list of attendees. Much of it is also unsourced. Significant revision recommended. Kabirat (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Front Page is highly problematic. The article is currently fully protected, however, and so most editors won't be able to make changes. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think the editors want there to be discourse and some consensus regarding changes. Hence my proposals above. Let me know what you think about them Kabirat (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Kabirat has personal problem with Amir Abbas Fakhravar and even recently Kabirat sent several facebook message to Amir Abbas Fakhravar and his friend's facebook page and threaten them. He has personal agenda and can not be neutral editor for Fakhravar's page.

These are false accusations simply intended to undermine the points raised above then to address them. I will comment no further than that Kabirat (talk) 08:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

About 4 point above, number (1); I should say Front page Magazine is much more trustable than "Mother Jons". On Mother Jones blog an un factual article about Amir Abbas Fakhravar was written 6 years ago and some people like Kabirat are using that article several times to discredit Fakhravar's biography. Please check this article and you will see the entire article is based on rummers and Mr. Fakhravar's enemies or competitors or Islamic Republic of Iran's informants who wants to attack Fakhravar and didn't have any fact never ever. You can't find any single fact for any of accusations made by writer of this article. "Has Washington found it's Iranian Chalabi?": http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/10/has-washington-found-its-iranian-chalabi/") In this article two co-called student activists Ahmad Batebi and Hassan Zarezadeh Ardeshir are saying Fakhravar is Islamic Republic of Iran's agent! It is interesting to now recently some facts showed both of them (Batebi and Zarezadeh) were Islamic Republic of Iran intelligence service's informant for 10 years! Please check this article: "Ahmad Batebi, an informant of Iranian Intelligence Ministry ": http://wetheiranian.blogspot.com/p/ahmad-batebi-informant-of-iranian.html/") You can see these two individual can not be a good source of information about Amir Abbas Fakhravar. Other witnesses on Mother Jones article against Fakhravar are Nasser Zaraafshan (Marxist-Stalinist) who has a deep ideological problem with Fakhravar. last one is Mohsen Sazegara the founder of Islamic Republic of Iran's Revolutionary Guards who is seeing Fakhravar as a bid competitor for himself. It is unbelievable how a journalist from Mother Jons blog chose these people which non of them are legitimate to talk about Amir Abbas Fakhravar. Also it is not a good Idea to use an example that one of articles on Front Page Magazine is criticizing Wikipedia and then come with this conclusion that "Front Page Magazine" is BAD! Where is freedom of speech then?

A few problems I see with this argument. First, there's no question there's an ideological slant and questionable reliability on the Front Page Mag article. Second, the Mother Jones article is reliable. It's not a "blog", it's an article written by Laura Rozen, an expert and frequent commentator and journalist on Middle East affairs (http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/authors/laura-rozen). The article is also based on a variety of eye-witnesses testimonies. Fourth, to the extent we intend to rely upon Front Page Mag for any assertions, then there's not much of an argument to exclude the contrary position taken in the Mother Jones article. Lastly, all of the accusations listed above are unfounded and in fact sourced to one blog which, coincidentally enough, seems to idolize the subject.Kabirat (talk) 08:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The position taken by Kabriat seems to make a lot of sense. Front Page Magazine is a questionable authority at best and shouldn't be relied upon without some other corroboration. I also question the motivations of Siavash777, which I have a suspicion is the subject himself. 91.82.187.42 (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not the subject but It is look like user 91.82.187.42 is Kabirat with another ID! Is it possible to check these ip Addresses. Siavash777 (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice, a conspiracy-theorist. 91.82.187.42 (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Siavash, do you have any objections with my proposal above? If so, can you describe them. Kabirat (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

About number (2), it is easy to find several facts, documents, Documentary movies and videos about Amir Abbas Fakhravar's story and his fight for freedom. For Example Documentary called Forbidden Iran with PBS that says Fakhravar was arrested 17 times becaouse of his ole at Iranian Student Movement against Islamic Government in Iran. "Fakhravar's role in Iranian Student Movement": http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iran/thestory.html/") Also you will find a lot more information here ; "Iran Forbidden": http://wetheiranian.blogspot.com/p/amir-fakhravars-story-as-one-of-iranian.html/") Siavash777 (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

If we can source those facts to actual and reliable information I have no problem with this. Notably, the PBS link doesn't talk about Fakhavar and the blog posting is virtually completely unreliable. Kabirat (talk) 08:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

User Kabirat, you should Stop your non-sence accusations against Fakhravar. PBS documentary called "Forbidden Iran" more than other Iranian Student activists, talking about Amir Abbas Fakhravar and his Student organization. Just check this video which is 10 minute of "Forbidden iran and all is about Fakhravar and his team. "Fakhravar's role in Iranian Student Movement": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKH4wsLlXtY/"). Also on "PBS/Forbidden Iran" 6 times Fakhravar was mentioned as a Student Leader and Hero and you want to tell us you couldn't find any of those. "Fakhravar's role in Iranian Student Movement": http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iran/thestory.html/") Siavash777 (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Two technical matters. If you're going to call someone names, at least spell the derogatory word correctly. It's nonsense, not "non-sence". Second, using derogatory words more than once doesn't make it come true. Now to address the substance of your point. I found the video you suggested, but on a separate website. Notably, and going back to the point I mention above, the PBS documentary only mentions one arrest. Again, the history of imprisonment is what I am concerned about here. Do you have anything that documents (apart from the Front Page Mag article) the number of imprisonments? So far everything, including the PBS Frontline documentary, only talks about one imprisonment. Kabirat (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

About number (3), again Mother Jons comes as a fact! Mother jones and that particular article against Fakhravar on this website can not be a reliable source of information about him as I mentioned on number (1) description. Fakhravar never had any type of support from any government and he doesn't believe in Neo-Cons theory toward Iran. All accusation vs. Fakhravar to attach him with Neo-Con movement is biased on rummers which is totally wrong. Siavash777 (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I repeat my comments to (1). Further, I think it's sufficient that enough credible newspapers have opined on this issue that it at least be noted in the article. Kabirat (talk) 08:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

User Kabirat, You want to ignore PBS, BBC, CNN, Fox News, CBN, Washington Post, Washington Times, Daily Telegraph, Jerusalem Post, New York sun, New York Daily News, Front page magazine, VOA, Radio Farda and many other reliable news channels who are calling Amir Abbas Fakhravar a "Hero" and "One of Iranian Student Leaders" and just mention one un-reliable blog called "Mother Jons" who has ideological problem with him as a source to discredit him. This is not right. Siavash777 (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You're really ignoring the point here. First, please provide the sources of your documents, don't just list them. Second, the point here is there are enough credible pieces from legitimate sources that outline the subject's controversial background. The whole point of Wikipedia is to provide the complete picture, not the one sided observation you want to display. You might not like Mother Jones because it makes Fakhavar look bad, but it actually is a legitimate publication and Rozen is a premier journalist. Similarly, you might not like the LA Times article because it says Fakhavar is controversial, but again its based on witness interviews. The point is, there's no reason to exclude the controversy. We need to weave the complete picture. Kabirat (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

About number (4), Iran Democratic Transition Conference was an important conference at George Washington University and U.S. Congress which was broadcast via Voice of America and several international Persian TVs. The Institute of World Politics has a lot of information about it on its website. Still the effects of this conference is moving toward creating National Iran Council. It is up to your judgment to see how important and powerful was this conference designed by Amir Abbas Fakhravar. "Iran Democratic Transition Conference": http://iwp.edu/events/detail/iran-democratic-transition-conference/") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siavash777 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not about importance. In fact, your point can be remedied by having a separate Wikipedia page on the conference (which I think is more appropriate in this case). For purposes of the subject's bio though, it may benefit from reducing the length by removing the list of candidates. Kabirat (talk) 08:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Siavash, given your conspicuous silence on this point, can I assume you agree with my suggestion? Kabirat (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Iran Democratic Transition Conference was one of the most important conference of Iranian Oppositions during last 30 years. This conference had a lot of impacts and still has. National Iran Council is one of them. Fakhravar as the planner and organizer of this very important conference should have some credit about it. Siavash777 (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not the point I made. I didn't suggest we should remove it altogether. I said we should remove the paragraph which lists all the attendees since that's more suited to a page that's exclusively about the conference. Do you understand that point? Kabirat (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

^ http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE13/009/2004/en/cd4fdbd6-d630-11dd-ab95-a13b602c0642/mde130092004en.html
^ http://www.pen.org/freedom/doiw_iran.htm
^ http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/10/has-washington-found-its-iranian-chalabi
^ http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/28/5482
^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/1522892/Ex-student-hailed-as-Irans-hope.html
^ http://ahmadbatebi.com/english-page/114-know-more-about-abass-fakhravar

[1] ttp://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE13/009/2004/en/cd4fdbd6-d630-11dd-ab95-a13b602c0642/mde130092004en.html

[2] ttp://www.pen.org/freedom/doiw_iran.htm

[3] ttp://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/10/has-washington-found-its-iranian-chalabi

[4] ttp://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/28/5482

[5] ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/1522892/Ex-student-hailed-as-Irans-hope.html

[6] ttp://ahmadbatebi.com/english-page/114-know-more-about-abass-fakhravar

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]