Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive176

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

Sanad Rashed

Yesterday I PRODed Sanad Rashed as I could not find any reliable sources which supported the claims within the article, and it looked like the article itself was promotional in nature. Today I revisited the article and saw that it was previously deleted for the same concerns. I don't have access to the former article, but based on the AfD comments I suspect that the author re-created the same article with the same problems. I'm not sure what to do at this point, because I don't think another AfD is necessary, and if it is a recreation then I don't think we should have to wait a week. Please advise, Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Does Speedy G4 apply? Or do you know that it is sufficiently different that it has to go to AfD again? Rklear (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Honestly I have no idea. This is my first encounter with this article, and I didn't know it was formally brought up for deletion until I proded the article. However I suspect that it isn't different enough. Another editor has removed the Prod, so I will probably bring it up for deletion if no one works on it for a few hours. I like to give a bit of time for the remover to prove their case before I bring it to AFD.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I have speedied as a G4; it was the same article. Lectonar (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Joel Grey's date of birth and marriage date

Joel Grey may have been born in 1951 but he sure wasn't married at age 7 in 1958. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.127.20.211 (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The article says Joel Grey was born in 1932. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Movladi Atlangeriyev

This article tells us that Atlangeriyev is 'reputedly' this, is 'perhaps' that and 'reportedly' did something else - all alleged criminal behaviour. Or rather, it did. I've blanked it as a blatant WP:BLP violation. Since when has an article consisting entirely of allegations, none of which the sources appear to be willing to confirm outright, been a legitimate Wikipedia biography? If Atlangeriyev is notable, he is presumably notable for something other than unsubstantiated allegations... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Andy, you're not a newb, ffs, use the {{la}} template, or at least the [[]] brackets to wikilink it (or maybe you're not Andy? cue wierd sounding music). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh sorry, yes it is/was Andy, total bullshit WEASEL article, either needs some RS or deleting (and probably salting, fan club phenomena). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I was in a bit of a rush, and probably could have handled it better. And yes, it is me (but then I would say that, wouldn't I...). As for weasels, the article seemed to consist of little else, other than a nice bit of insinuation about 'an ethnic Chechen man known as "Mr. A"' being deported. Nudge nudge, wink wink, know what I mean... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Blanked, deleted, restored, blankeked, CSD(A3) request, AfD or salt or what , this is pure BLPjuice BS? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Michele (Mica) Mosbacher

Michele (Mica) Mosbacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Newtononeill (talk · contribs)

Written as a puff piece by a conflict of interest account, presumably [1]. I've done minimal copy editing to this unsourced press release, but welcome further attention. 99.0.83.243 (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Simple, Wikipedia:Blpprod, wait and see. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Selmo Cikotic

Selmo Cikotic is no longer the Defence Minister of BiH. The current minister is Zekarijah Mevludin Osmic, according to the Ministry's web site: http://www.mod.gov.ba/MO_BiH/Struktura/ministar_odbrane/default.aspx?id=21760

So help us out and amend the article to reflect that. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Garry Davis

Could somebody please apply some sort of standards to this article? It obviously was written by someone who is very fond of Mr. Davis if not Mr. Davis himself. My biggest problem is where it says "he renounced his citizenship in Paris..." That is simply untrue. Renouncing your citizenship is a very specific process that takes place at an embassy. Mr. Davis lives in South Burlington, Vermont, as a citizen of the United States, enjoying all the rights and privileges that being a citizen of the United State entails. He heads an organization which tries to sell booklets purporting to be 'World Passports', and this article is pretty much propaganda for that scheme. People pay money to buy these books and attempt to travel abroad with them. Please do something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.200.18.33 (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for raising these concerns. I've trimmed and variously hacked away at what I agree was excessively promotional, or at least non-neutral, language in the article. You may wish to improve it further, perhaps after discussing the issues on the talk page of the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

ita buttrose

Ita Buttrose's wikipedia says she is born in 1942 and married at age 31, which means she married in 1972. Yet it states she and her husband travelled to England in 1967. If she divorced in 1976, did she marry 21 not 31, in 1962? It doesn't add up the way it is written now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.60.25 (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The reference-interview says she was 21 when she first married. It looks like someone has made that change in the article.Coaster92 (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Stephanie Black

The article is too short and the last half is pretty much nonsensical. Either that or someone is making unsourced claims with major grammatical errors. Unable to edit, don't know anything about the Director. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.78 (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I've had a look at the Stephanie Black article, and I've trimmed the excessive lists of awards (that should go in the articles about the films) and marked a couple of statements as not being referenced. I didn't see any BLP problems though - could you be more specific? The article being a stub isn't a biographical issue, and editors here are unlikely to be able to expand it (I've never heard of her). The best place to request expansion is on the talk page or at the WikiProject. I've tagged this for the New York and Actors and Filmmakers projects, and I'll place a note on the latter's Actors and Filmmakers|talk page where someone with knowledge of the subject is most likely to see it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Jason Bermas

I tried to add a couple sources and clean up some uncited material, but short that it is, it needs some more hands and eyes. Thanks. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Judith Miller

Judging from comments on the talk page, it appears that the article on American journalist Judith Miller contains a signifiant amount of controversial and potentially libelous material. Unfortunately I myself am not available to edit it at this time, but something ought to be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhof (talk • contribs) 10:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a lot of article to go through. At first glance I don't see anything that could be a blatant issue, but maybe you could help us out and tell us what you think the issue is. Aside from some "she said he said" paragraphs that could be pruned I don't see anything truly problematic from a BLP perspective. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Sensible Sentencing Trust - Gratuitous insult against living person, sourced from someone's blog

Quick question. Is this edit [2] even remotely acceptable? I wouldn't have thought so, but the last time I tried fixing any of that editor's BLP violations a lot of people got bent out of shape so I'd rather leave it to the experts. (The organisation in question actually bears little or no resemblance to the organisation described in the article, which has been converted into a hatchet job by an editor who is in an off-wiki dispute with the organisation, but it would require people with a lot more spare time than myself to fix that mess). Thanks in advance. Daveosaurus (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

No, not acceptable. I have removed it, but it would be helpful if other regulars here commented as well, because I suspect this isn't the last we'll see of it, and it will help if there's a clear message here about BLP and RS for this particular gem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Hopefully this will start putting an end to the nonsense. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Allan Bell MHK

Comments about IOM Government support for the Sefton Group:- a) Should be identified as relating to a current event. b) Source 5 references newspaper opinion, which does not belong in a biography. c) The wording gives the impression that the Sefton is not profitable, which is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.86.29 (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Suman Sahai

A number of IPs and single-cause users keep removing the 'Controversy' section from the Suman Sahai article. As far as I can see that section is properly sourced and there aren't any BLP concerns. Am I right or should the section be removed? Yintan 11:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

As the editor who put it there in the first place, I obviously think that it is OK :-) The source is impeccable and compared to what the source actually says, this section is quite neutral in tone... --Randykitty (talk) 12:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that the subject has filed an OTRS request to delete both her bio and the stub on the organization that she established (Gene Campaign). --Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope the Gene Campaign article isn't deleted because of a OTRS request given the RS coverage of the organization. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

William J. Kyte Bio Update

I need to update the bio of William J. Kyte. I would also like to insert a photo.

The article should be listed as follows:

William J. Kyte

Bill Kyte currently resides in Scottsdale, Arizona.

He was Founder, CEO and principal stockholder of Roanoke Companies, purchased by the H.B. Fuller Company in 2006.

Kyte attended the University of Arizona until 1965 when he returned to his native Kansas City, Missouri. He has developed a 50+ year entrepreneurial career in distribution, manufacturing and product development. Whilst with Roanoke Companies, Kyte also invented and attained patents D472,787 and US 7,241,828.

Currently, Kyte is the principal of Roanoke Capital Management (RCM), a group of extensive investments in private equity, real estate, as well as direct investments in the banking and energy sectors.

Mr. Kyte serves on the National Board of Advisors for the Eller College of Management at the University of Arizona. In June,1993 he was awarded a Certificate of Achievement from the Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership and the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.

His philanthropic interests focus on medical research, education for underprivileged children and hunger in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahferry (talk • contribs) 14:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information; and Wikipedia is certainly not a promotional tool. Giant Snowman 16:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Further input welcome - Sarah has a COI here, is edit-warring with me, and has stopped responding to e-mails. Giant Snowman 18:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I just closed a ticket re: this, with the suggestion that this is better handled through here. Not sure if she understands how this works, but we don't just paste over a bio with material provided by the subject's assistants. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:18, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Jason Collins

Jason Collins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The page for NBA player who just came out as gay in the new Sports Illustrated is being called a "faggot" on his Wikipedia page. I believe it's in the first sentence. Please correct this immediately and do something to protect bigoted people from attacking him on Wikipedia.

Par for the course, unfortunately. Watched and will request protection if the vandalism gets too bad. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Paul Maher Jr.

Under "talk" section, someone inserted a lie about "stealing thousands of books" which is a complete fabrication.

Thank you, Paul Maher Jr, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.4.209 (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It had been removed back in 2009, but it was inexplicably readded by another user. Removed now, thanks for the heads up. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 19:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Sondra Peterson

This article is suffereing from some fallout from other BLP articles that are relatives to this subject. Mostly puffery and promotion edits and now socking. More eyes is usually the best solution. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what is being requested. The article does need development but could you specify your other concerns? Thanks.Coaster92 (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Photos of private people doing things they might be embarrassed about later

Article: Exhibitionism
Talk page thread: Talk:Exhibitionism#Image at top of page

I'd like an opinion regarding the privacy of a non-Wikipedian, so I'm posting here even though this isn't an actual biography of a person.

Say Commons has a correctly-licensed picture of someone where (a) they are not a public person; i.e. they aren't "notable", not in the public eye, however you want to define it; (b) the person's face is clearly visible, so they could be easily identified in real life as the person in the image; (c) we have no reason to think that they would give permission to use their image in something as public as an encyclopedia article; (d) they are not an incidental part of the picture, they are the main subject of the picture, and (e) the picture is of them doing something that they would possibly find embarrassing later in life, either the morning after or a few years down the road (in the particular case that got me involved, a young woman flashing the crowd at Mardi Gras, but I'm more interested in the general case).

Should we use an image like this in an article? I believe, if all five of these things are true, the answer should definitely be "no"; this is not how humans treat other humans. We shouldn't be taking the approach "Well she should have thought of that beforehand".

I would also have concerns if some more of the things above weren't true - for example, what if all that were true except it wasn't embarrassing, or they weren't the main subject of the picture. Or as another example, is this even legal without a release from the subject of the photo? I'm not even going to touch whether Commons should host the image, whether or not we use it in an article. But I think it would be difficult finding a consensus on all those questions, and I don't want a whole sprawling discussion that ends up as "no consensus", so I'd like to try to keep it focused just on the case with conditions (a) thru (e) for now, and maybe follow up on other more complicated issues after that, either here or somewhere more appropriate.

One more thing: to head one thing off at the pass: This is not a "NOTCENSORED" argument, and I'm going to get really depressed if someone trots that out. If I had reason to think that the person in the photo is OK with this being in an article, I would not be trying to remove it. I've left a different photo in that article because the person's face couldn't be easily identified. This is a question about how we treat a person, not about prudishness. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with your points above. It seems to me that what you're asking for is little more than reasonable adult behaviour. I've no idea if this legal case has any formal relevance, but it seems to me pertinent to point it out.

I also agree that NOTCENSORED is depressingly misused in cases like this - we also have WP:GRATUITOUS. Particularly when - as seems likely in practically all such situations - it is possible to make the same point without using potentially damaging material (i.e. that doesn't fail when compared to your (a) through (e)) then we should never be using the more potentially questionable material. Kahastok talk 17:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The title of this section refers to "people doing embarrassing things". I don't see any sign that the person in the photograph motivating this discussion is embarrassed. I could understand the concern being raised if the situation were somehow accidental ("nipple slip"), but that's clearly not what is going on here. I understand that the question has been raised "in general", and I agree that we ought not violate people's privacy by exposing them in ways they did not intend. But this woman clearly intended to expose her breasts in public. Some individuals discussing here might feel embarrassment at the thought of exposing their own breasts in public, but I don't think we have reason to project those feelings onto someone else. The article in question is "exhibitionism": some people embrace it, something evidently demonstrated in the photo. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

She was obvious not embarrassed at the moment the picture was taken. I even concede she probably knew some tourists were taking pictures. What I doubt she knew is that it would end up plastered on a high viewership website, and she would be singled out. It's certainly possible she still feels no embarrassment, but knowing what I know about most people, it's not likely she still feels no embarrassment. That's not projecting my feelings onto her; that's projecting what in all honesty is what most people's feeling would be onto her, in the absence of better information. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

But doesn't that view imply that "exhibitionism" doesn't really exist? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I think what you're saying (particularly with your last sentence two posts above, 20:19) is that anytime someone exposes their "private parts" in public we should assume that they will end up feeling embarrassed about it. That's the opposite of exhibitionism: exhibitionism is the practice of voluntarily exposing oneself (typically for pleasure of some sort). It seems you're suggesting that people don't actually expose themselves voluntarily for pleasure -- instead, they feel embarrassed by it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

That has naught to do with either the legality or propriety of placing such images on Wikipedia. Clearly the consensus here is that recognizable images of people ought not be used. Collect (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Ah, OK. No, I'm not saying there's no such thing as an exhibitionist, just that they aren't nearly as common as people who do something like this without thinking it through (and probably 90% of the time drunk), and then regret it later. I think we should assume they'll feel embarrassed about it later, unless there is evidence to the contrary; the default assumption should not be that they are exhibitionists. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with Floquenbeam's points, and framing this as a living-person privacy issue, not a censorship issue. This kind of thing will get even more problematic as the technology improves for searching the Internet via face-recognition programs. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree as well. The moment you use an image that can be used to identify a person, the article becomes about that person and not about the topic it's supposed to be covering. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

nuke it now It's so obviously a BLP violation that I don't know why we even need to discuss it. Mangoe (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- If it was "obviously a BLP violation" then there would be no good faith arguments to keep it. Such arguments have been made, therefore it is not "obvious". Indeed, I don't see what the BLP issues arise from a photograph taken in a public place of a subject who obviously knows they are being photographed. Whether someone else feels that the subject should be embarrassed by what they did is completely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  - There are always people who refuse to see the obvious. Rd232 has it right: it's not reasonable to assume a young woman (in a context where inebriation is hardly unlikely) has consented for all time to be made the official representative of exhibitionism. We shouldn't be turning her into a public figure of potential and perpetual embarrassment; the fact that she didn't feel embarrassed then is not excuse for us to take advantage of an injudicious act and use her reputation for our own benefit. Mangoe (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    - And there are people who are so full of themselves that they think "it's obvious" is the ultimate trump in a debate. Both sides make good arguments, but yours is not helped by behaving in such an arrogant fashion. Resolute 20:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
      - The feeling I'm having here is anger at all the people who don't care about the injury to this woman that they are advocating in the name of "she volunteered for us to take advantage of her." Well, and I feel dismay. Since we are apparently free to infer intent I feel free to impute to you refusal to admit your moral culpability under the guise of misrepresenting my use of a word. Surely nobody is stupid enough to think that "obvious" or for that matter anything short of a box around the debate and then archiving is sufficient to close off debate. I used the word precisely because I think it is obvious that increasing the promulgation of the image has the potential for harm. I don't think people don't notice she can be harmed; the reading I get in the arguments (and even more so in the far more reprehensible Commons discussion) is that everyone does see that she is harmed by increasing promulgation, but that most people don't care if they hurt her by doing so. Mangoe (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

There are three different issues here:

A photograph of a living person (ignoring status of dress or undress or embarrassing act), absolutely in the UK, and 0.95 probability in the EC, is personal data within the meaning of the various European pieces of enabling legislation for Data Privacy Directive number {some number or other}, and may not lawfully be used without the consent of the individual in that picture if the subject is a under local legal jurisdiction and the organisation which uses the picture is subject to local legislation. WMF is subject to that jurisdiction on some EC nations. Other nations have different legislation.
I am not altogether certain what "Embarrassing things" are. The definition is imprecise. I have no concerns about my anatomy being on display online.
To be suitable for display at all the picture must be licenced correctly by the copyright owner.

So this gets complex. Item 1 is a legal issue. For this the legal team must give an opinion. It is not a community issue since it may result in a problem for WMF. The community often disregards laws of which it is ignorant or which it wishes would go away. That is appalling and must be remedied, but it is an Office action to remedy it.

Item 2 is a matter of taste. It is either tasteful or not, and that is with regard to its context in the article. Gratuitous decoration of any article with a load of images is frowned upon. This is the same whatever the image. That it may be of a personal displaying body parts most commonly covered is not relevant at all. There is a censorship issue here, whatever the introduction says. However it is not an issue of "The image must not be removed because that would be censorship." If the image adds value to the article then removal is a form of censorship. If it adds no value then that is a form of editing. I applaud good editing and I deplore censorship. So I am not in favour of gratuitous removal of a picture, nor am I in favour of gratuitous addition of one.

Item 3 is a legal issue. It is either correctly licenced and should remain and be used wisely in articles or is not and should go.

The whole is complicated further by BLP issues. Broadly, those issues are handled in laws like the UK's Data Protection Act 1998 and in similar EC and other legislation. WMF and thus WIkipedia is subject to some of these laws despite being US headquartered.Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This is an easy call based on Floquenbeam's description of the image (although there will always be more difficult or borderline cases). Based on the situation described in the top of the thread, the image should not be used on Wikipedia. I see this as a significant ethical issue, and am not even going to get into the potential legal aspects, which however are nontrivial. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This precisely. Speaking from the perspective of someone with a fair amount of media law training, at least in the United States it would be technically legal to publish the picture. However, our editing standards have never been "we will publish anything that is legal." Selective, sensitive and common-sense editorial policies are not censorship, and given that we have a perfectly good alternative picture that well-illustrates the subject without identifying a person, I see absolutely no reason that we should use it. polarscribe (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

- (edit conflict) Floquenbeam's description is far from a neutral presentation of the facts. I see no reasons we should not use an image like this if it best illustrates the topic. Wikipedia is not censored, so the only question that matters is what it is in fact the best image we have. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Some facts for clarity:
- The image under discussion here is File:Mardi Gras Flashing - Color.jpg.
- It has been nominated for deletion on Commons: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mardi Gras Flashing - Color.jpg (currently 5-2 keep-delete, although it is obviously not a vote).
  - Update:the image was kept as within scope, legal and presenting no problems regarding photos of identifiable people. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- The file is sourced from flickr and licensed cc-by-sa-2.0. The license has been verified by Commons users.
- Wikipedia follows the laws of the United States, specifically the law of Florida (where it is hosted), under those laws it is legal to take and to use photos of people taken in a place where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
- There are no legal reasons why this image cannot be used on Wikipedia.
- The image at the top of the Exhibition article has been changed to File:Budapest girl.jpg because at least one editor feels it better illustrates the topic of the article. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  - Its legality notwithstanding, Wikipedia's policy has never been "whatever is legal is suitable for the encyclopedia." It was perfectly legal for Reddit to host wild speculation about the identity of the Boston Marathon bombers and allow users to post outlandish, terribly-wrong theories as to who was responsible. That does not mean it was right for them to do so. polarscribe (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    - I brought up the legality as it mentioned above, but because Wikipedia is not censored the policy is "whatever is legal is suitable for the encyclopaedia", i.e. it can be used in the encyclopaedia. That does not mean that the image is suitable for every article, or that it is the best image for every article it is suitable for. Specifically this image is suitable for the Exhibitionism article because it is legal and illustrates exhibitionism, but that does not mean it is the most suitable image or that there are no better images available. Thryduulf (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
      - Again, not true. There are plenty of things which might be legal that cannot be used in the encyclopedia because of our own policies. NOTCENSORED is not a license to include anything and everything. I gave the example above of speculation about the identity of a criminal suspect. That might be perfectly legal under United States law, but it has no place in the encyclopedia because it violates other core content policies. As NOTCENSORED itself states: "Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view)... will also be removed." polarscribe (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
        Yes there are things that are legal but not encyclopaedic, but the point of NOTCENSORED is that everything that is legal can be considered for inclusion in the encyclopaedia on equal terms. For images the sole relevant question is whether that image is the best illustration of the topic - an image that would be a BLP violation in that context would obviously not be the best illustration. In this specific case though I am not seeing any BLP violations and so that isn't a factor in determining whether this is the best illustration of Exhibitionism. Thryduulf (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Looks like an open and shut BLP case to me, unless we can find the woman in question and she says it's okay. It's a little like reposting a non-famous person's name here on Wikipedia after it's been printed in a local police blotter. If this were a photo of a car accident victim, drunk, or a text description of these or any of a number of other things, same concern. We're taking a publicly accessible but not widely known potentially embarrassing fact about someone, and spreading it for hundreds of thousands of people to see, likely including the girl herself, her friends and family, etc. There's been a lot in the news about bullying, people sending naked pictures of others around in order to shame them, and all the mental trauma that creates. We can assume that if this girl's coworkers or classmates or neighbors find the image they'll be doing the same thing. Yes, she voluntarily did it in public and who knows if she cares? But same thing if we showed a photo of a guy who peed on himself in an article about bladder control. There is no encyclopedic reason why we have to use someone who is so clearly identifiable here, so it's gratuitous harm. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Private citizens have zero expectation of privacy while in public. Any person can have their picture taken on the street, or visible from the street, and that picture can legally be published, with no problem of personality rights. That is black letter law in the United States. That someone has exposed a part of their body normally kept private makes absolutely no difference, there is still no expectation of privacy, and we break no moral or ethical code by publishing the photo. In fact, one can make the case that my deliberately and freely exposing her breasts, the subject has invited attention, and has even less expectation of privacy than a person strolling down the street.
  To frame this as a BLP problem make little or no sense. The exposure is a fact, it was clearly done freely and not under duress, in a public place. The law is clearly on our side, and there is no real BLP reason for not publishing. It is neither our job nor our responsibility to protect people from their own actions, and to speculate that the person may now or in the future might possibly be embarasssed by their actions is to impose on someone else one's own moral sensibility. That is clearly a violation of NPOV, as we do not edit using our own POV as a reference point, which is essentially what Floquenbeam wants to do here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  - Once again, you're not addressing the question. I am not doubting its legality as a matter of law. What I am doubting is whether we, as an encyclopedia, should be in the business of posting for the entire world for all eternity an embarrassing and potentially-damaging picture of an otherwise-anonymous person. The fact that Wikipedia is not censored is not license to put anything and everything up willy-nilly. We can and should afford to be sensitive and thoughtful about what we publish, particularly what we publish about non-public figures who have not invited themselves to become a permanent part of an encyclopedia article.
  - Not one person has yet attempted to rebut or deal with this argument - the image's defenders are simply assuming that we should not care about this person because she probably can't sue us. That kind of thinking is not humane and ignores the fact that public sentiment is not limited to that which may be illegal. Editorial discretion is not censorship. The community decides all the time what it will publish and what it won't. polarscribe (talk) 05:41, 27 April 2013 (UT)
    - I would further note that this issue would be solved by simply finding an exhibitionist who is explicitly and affirmatively willing to be used in a picture for Wikipedia. I can't imagine it would be super-difficult. polarscribe (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
BLP implies that an identifiable image of a non-notable person should be used only with great care. The questions "is the image legal?" (yes), and "is removing it censorship?" (no) are not relevant as we are considering whether to use a certain image in a certain article which is a question of editorial judgment. There is no reason to assume the woman knew that a picture of her would be taken, and it is obvious that there was no consent for such a picture to be used as a defining illustration of exhibitionism (the argument "it's legal, we don't need consent" is not relevant as the question being asked concerns editorial judgment—given an image of a non-consenting person, should that image be used to define "exhibitionism" in an encyclopedia?). My judgment is that any picture should be of a non-identifiable person, or should be accompanied with consent. Johnuniq (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I share the concerns of Floquenbeam, and strongly endorse the comments of Newyorkbrad and Polarscribe. There is simply no reason to use this particular photo; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not "Girls Gone Wild." Regardless of the legal niceties in particular American or European jurisdictions, I might also add that even the "Girls Gone Wild" producers have the good sense to get an all-encompassing legal release from their photo and video subjects before publishing clearly recognizable private citizens in various states of nakedness. In short, there is no encyclopedic reason to use this particular photo of a clearly recognizable person. It's time to exercise some editorial discretion as if we were a professional publication, not a group of volunteers rattling on about "censorship." Censorship is not the issue; editorial judgment and potential liability are. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Yank the picture. I have no doubts about the legality of it. But legal does not make it necessary, right, or over-ride BLP concerns. This is a non-notable person plastered over one of the most viewed websites in the world. Hiding behind 'oh but its totally legal' is a cowardly way to defer personal responsibility for one's actions. In this case the action of potentially humiliating another human being for no good reason. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Why, objectively, is this picture more potentially humiliating than any other photo of an identifiable person? Where is your evidence that this subject considers this humiliating? Given that this picture is clearly a picture of exhibitionism there is encyclopaedic justification to use it in the exhibitionism article - that doesn't mean that it's the right picture to use editorially, but that question is one for editors on the article talk page. The question for this board is whether it is a BLP violation to show a picture of an adult voluntarily engaging in a legal activity in a public place while fully aware that they are being photographed? Honestly I don't see how it can be without projecting one's morals onto the subject - which is something that Wikipedia does not do. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Remove photo from article. Yes the photo (and especially the File:Showing_breasts_in_New_Orleans.jpg variant, with photographer in shot) are actually good illustrations of exhibitionism. And yes, it's entirely possible that the subject would beam with pride if she found out her image was used in this way. But being used as a prominent emblem of "exhibitionism" is quite different from consenting to be photographed or videoed for Girls Gone Wild, I think, and I don't think we can assume so. Ergo, editorial caution should apply, and the photo not used. Rd232 ^talk 12:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
The picture should be pulled and not used. Such pictures should only be used with the consent of those being photographed. There are plenty of people who would consent to such photographs being used, so why are people insisting on using this image where no consent has been granted? More generally, how should such articles be illustrated? Stop a moment and think about how a reputable encyclopedia would illustrate an article on exhibitionism, if at all. Some encyclopedias might not even have an article on exhibitionism, but might cover that topic in a subsection of a larger article. And even if they did have an article, they might choose not to have an image to illustrate it. The whole mindset that we need to have pictures to illustrate certain topics is wrong. Often a verbal description is sufficient. And even if images are requested, you need to be be able to say with 100% certainty that what is being shown is exhibitionism. This is one of those situations where pictures need to come from a reputable source, such an established archive with picture information that states unequivocally what the image is showing. Not some random picture taken by some random person of another random person. Carcharoth (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe drifting off topic here, but I cannot understand why people get so upset about seeing a picture of a pair of breasts, something that every woman in the world has. Leave it in. Hohenloh⁺ 12:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  - (EC) Not actually an issue, no one (that I can see) above has said they are offended by breasts or pictures thereof. For those of us outside the US its actually a fairly normal thing. Beaches, sunbathing in the city etc. However there is a marked difference between 'informed consent' and 'photo taken while probably drunk and having a good time'. There is also a difference between flashing someone and having your picture adorning a worldwide encyclopedia accessed by millions daily. But given the licence its been uploaded to commons with, why doesnt someone just take the picture, blur the face and re-upload for use? Being able to identify her face is not required for the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
    - If the face was blurred it wouldn't be a very good illustration. It also wouldn't be enough to prevent identification; see commons:Commons:BLP#Identification. Rd232 ^talk 13:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
      - Ah so its your opinion that for it to be a 'good illustration for exhibitionism' she must be identifiable? Or do you mean that it wouldnt be a 'good' illustration in that the picture quality would suffer? The first is refuted by the other non-identifable pictures, the second by finding a better picture with a subject who has given informed consent. Commons policy on identifable people is irrevelevant for wikipedia articles. However I would point out that even there it admits there are moral and ethical arguments. But for all practical purposes, a good scramble will mask her identity. It seems a reasonable compromise. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
        No, the subject doesn't need to be identifiable, but a blurred subject would be very distracting. Better not to have an image at all - though certainly replacements can be found (and there's currently an undisputed image in the article anyway, so it's not exactly a crisis). I mentioned Commons policy on identifiable people, specifically about identification issues, because you talked about uploading a blurred version to Commons!! Rd232 ^talk 14:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
        Not offended at all, they are quite nice in fact, and the photo is a pretty good one. I think cropping would be a better option than blurring, but a better option yet would be to find an apt illustrative image where due to the pose, or costume, etc., makes the subject harder to identify. - 15:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me, notice has been given here, and further discussion, if any, should go in the article's talk page or other forum appropriate to the topic. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

A horrible article spawns all sorts of problems, not the least of which are the BLP issues. First of all, without a shred of reliable sourcing, the article equates any willingness to appear any willingness to appear unclad in a public or "semi-public" situation as exhibitionism. Then it categorizes exhibitionism among paraphilias, sex crimes, and sexual fetishes. Then it's illustrated with images of identifiable people. Taking the article on its own terms, the average high school or college athletic shower room is a hotbed of exhibitionism. Blow the damn thing up and start over, with an emphasis on reliable sources.
And, on the narrow BLP issue about a single photo: It's clearly staged; as is apparent from the uncropped image at Commons, the subject is clearly posing for a photographer. That doesn't make her an exhibitionist, in the sense the term is ordinarily understood. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

That's fair (the article is pretty terrible), but those points about the article need making on the talk page (in a separate section, I guess). Rd232 ^talk 19:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Responding to those (more than one) who have taken the position above that because the image is "legal," that is the end of the matter. Making sure that Wikipedia's content (text and files) is "legal" is the beginning, not the end, of our editorial responsibilities. We delete, or decline to include, content all the time whose inclusion would be perfectly legal. For example, every time we delete an article because its subject is non-notable, we are making an editorial decision (sometimes a good one and sometimes a bad one) that the encyclopedia we are building is better off without that content. Only rarely (mostly in the case of copyvios) does "legality" play a role in deletion discussions; we retain or delete content because we think it improves the encyclopedia to include it, bearing in mind all relevant considerations. The relevant considerations in a given case may include completeness, accuracy and reliability, notability, as well as the potential effect of encyclopedic content on article subjects and third parties. We certainly do not privilege the last of these considerations over the others, but it has its place in our discussion, and the idea of excluding it from consideration as a matter of principle is repellent. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

So find a better picture. The entire "remove it" argument is predicated on numerous assumptions and POV projections of how individual editors presume someone else would think. But the simplest solution here is simply to find a better picture to illustrate the subject. That would completely eliminate the need for all this argumentation. Reso lute 20:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Reject the general argument, BUT don't use the picture. WP:NOTCENSORED is a real policy - it's not just some whipping boy to be pulled out at the beginning and mocked every time someone comes up with a proposal to blanket-reject every possible image of a topic, say exhibitionism, based on the notion that "somebody might decide on second thought it was a bad idea". Should our article on FEMEN be suitably illustrated or not? However, that said, it does violate BLP to portray this particular woman as the illustration for exhibitionism, when we don't know she is an exhibitionist. We don't know the circumstances well enough to have a BLP-confident level of sourcing to say that she is a good example. Sure, she might be a good example, but this we don't play guessing games about that sort of stuff (we don't use Prince Charles to illustrate Fragile X, even if some people online say yeah, well, maybe he looks like he might carry it). I would appreciate keeping separate track of the two closes for this discussion, because I don't want the weak case for using this picture in this article to become an excuse to claim a more general consensus against more appropriate uses of potentially embarrassing photos. Wnt (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

If we have picture of a woman who is not naked, she could still be embarrassed about that later for all sorts of reasons. E.g. she could convert to Islam and decide to wear a burqa. To someone who wears a burqa, women who wear ordinary clothes are exhibitionists. Count Iblis (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Get rid of it. I have all sorts of issues with this pic being up, most of them covered by other Eds upthread and the other 2 this has created. If I see another WP IS NOT CENSORED-centric argument I shall trash my screen. Is this even an accurate pic to illustrate the topic? I thought exhibitionism was outside of the mainstream culture? This is not so with the event and subject I would argue. A much better pic would be an elderly man in a long overcoat hanging around a park.Irondome (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Whenever I read discussions such as these (and the one at Jimbo's talk page, and Commons) I always end up wondering "where in the world does Wikipedia manage to find the scumbags that manage to make these kinds of comments with a straight face???". The only logical explanation that I can come up with is that there's purposeful trolling going on because there's just no way that such a number of people can be so ethically damaged. But maybe that's what Wikipedia has become.Volunteer Marek 02:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I was going to ignore that contentious comment, and maybe I still ought to, but it is just outrageous. You're calling us "scumbags", "trolls", "ethically damaged" for trying to maintain uniform, logical standards for Wikimedia projects --- even as we have very patiently AGF-argued against the myriad wrong justifications of a crusade which from the beginning has been focused only on trying to remove all "porn" from Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

There are several attitudes that appear to have been displayed so far. 1/ A blind and literal adherence to certain WP guidelines, which seems to reduce this person to the status of a lab rat. "System men" with no empathy to this person at all. 2/ An ethical issue, as VM mentioned above. Only use if we get permission from the subject (and I stick by my claim that this pic does not accurately represent the article subject). Just a gut feeling that having the pic up in the present time is wrong. I believe it would be illegal in the UK anyway, I think it would fall under the data protection act.Irondome (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't get what the UK has to do with it. It's an American picture on an American server and there's no reason to pay them any attention. For example, some of the European countries have database copyright stupidity, and I've fully and flagrantly ignored it, and intend to keep doing so. Nor is this a matter of "blind adherence"; this is a matter of ethics - the ethics that we should accurately cover the topics at hand, and not help to coerce women into feeling more unnecessarily ashamed of themselves for being female than they already do in furtherance of a wrong-headed societal taboo. As it happens, portraying the girl as the type specimen of an "exhibitionist" would be probably false. However, the picture could conceivably be properly used in illustration of the Mardi Gras festival in particular (though one would expect that far better street-scene photos of flashing by larger groups with more context should be available for that article) Wnt (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

This isnt Watergate. So your ethical system is confined to the dictates of WP guidance? also, you seem to be asserting that pictures of women with their tits out is somehow empowering them? I note the tortuous use of some kind of unconvincing pro-feminist reasoning to let you have your cake and eat it. Sounds a pretty desperate argument. Glad you agree about the inappropriateness of the pic to the article. So lets get rid of it. Irondome (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Fully agree with Floquenbeam. It should go without saying. Andreas JN 466 07:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we do what is usually done in such cases in the media, i.e. blur the face of the woman so she becomes unrecognizable? Count Iblis (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Because it's essentially pointless, see commons:Commons:BLP#Identification. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That's true in general, but for this particular problem it should work. Count Iblis (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

A noble, unprovable theory that is completely irrelevant. We'd link from the derivative version (pixellated) to the original (unpixellated) version (as required by policy and license) meaning she'd be trivially identifiable even if the non-technological factors (e.g. squinting) are ignored. The problem isn't that she's identifiable (if it were we would have no pictures of identifiable non-notable people) but that some people wish to hold images of people displaying body parts a mainstream western cultural attitude says shouldn't be shown in public to a different standard to images of people displaying body parts that other cultures say shouldn't be public but western mainstream cultural attitudes are fine with. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

My original question is somewhat undermined by the fact that this was probably not, as claimed in the file description on Commons, a woman flashing the crowd at Mardi Gras, but instead a staged photo shoot. If that is indeed the case, I'm not as concerned about this particular case as I was before. But the more general point remains, and could apply to a lot of cases. Can we take a picture of a drunk in the gutter and use it to illustrate "alcoholism"? Indeed, should we be able to do something as "innocent" as to take a picture of someone who is shy, but happens to have been in public, and use it to illustrate "blond hair"?

My takeaway from this discussion is that, while it is certainly not unanimous, there is definitely a consensus that in a situation where a private individual has been photographed (even knowingly photographed) in a public place, can be easily identified, is not incidental to the photo but instead is the subject of the photo, has not given explicit permission to use their likeness for this purpose, and there is a reasonable expectation they might be embarrassed by the picture being used on Wikipedia, that we will not use that photo, even if it is licensed properly and would be of encyclopedic use. Regardless of what Commons thinks about the issue.

My own preference is much more restrictive than this; I believe we shouldn't use a photo of anyone who has not given their explicit consent, even if there is no reasonable expectation of embarrassment. Whether it makes the encyclopedia slightly less useful or not. I don't think I should have to wear a burqa to avoid being used to illustrate some encyclopedia article, just because I left my house to get groceries, and I think the right to privacy in a public place is currently not valued enough on WP, nor in the US. But that is not the subject of this particular discussion, and I am certainly not claiming there is currently a consensus for that. If I do decide to propose that in the future, I'll notify everyone who has commented in this thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This issue comes up repeatedly (for instance, search this thread for the words "there is a strong ethical argument against including photos of aborted fetuses without some sort of indication that the patient consented to their prominent display on a highly-viewed page of a top-10 website"). I agree with Floquenbeam that the marginal utility added by a image is easily outweighed if there's a possibility that by prominently publishing it, we will harm or embarrass its subject. Like most such discussions on Wikipedia, the focus is on can we? rather than on should we? If there's one takeaway from this discussion, how about we try to focus future discussions on the latter question rather than the former? MastCell ^Talk 19:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh my God should we include photos in the abortion article - I can't believe this "ethical" claptrap! Asking if it's morally acceptable that we use a free image of an actual fetus to illustrate the abortion article! When we might not have the actual permission of the mother of the poor discarded object, who having had it torn out and thrown away for our examination, should be counted on to tell us whether or not it would have wanted us to be able to look at it for an educational article! A person would be better off having a clever surgeon stick a probe in his brain and burn his sense of ethics into ashes than to rely on judgment like this. Wnt (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove it. I can't help but think that if there actually are real Exhibitionists, it shouldn't be impossible to find one to pose for a photo and attach a written disclaimer that we can publish that he/she is perfectly happy to be viewed on a top-10-or-5-or-what-are-we-up-to-now website. If we can't get such a disclaimer, it's not unreasonable to suppose that this person is not as much of an exhibitionist as we would want to serve as an illustration of our article. --GRuban (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Explicit permission is important for identifiable photos of anyone who is not a public figure. As GRuban says, there are many exhibitionist communities, which would be a fine source for photos with explicit subject release. – SJ + 21:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Danario Alexander

Danario Alexander does not have a son named Danario Alexander Jr, please delete this information as it is incorrect. Someone is constantly adding this information and it is not a true piece of information on this man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teixste (talk • contribs) 17:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reference to a son in the article. Are you sure you saw this on Wikipedia?--ukexpat (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It's on the Google search page for his name. Wikipedia has no control over this. Rojomoke (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Martin Blinder

I am hoping that I could get a few more eyes on this article. It appears as though an ISP with a grudge has been cherry-picking negative details of the subject in violation of WP:WEIGHT. Thanks! Location (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Bob Brozman

Bob Brozman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bio of recently deceased musician, grossly libelous and unsubstantiated claims added by SPA and revdel'ed. Need a few more eyes on it please. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have simplified the sentence about his death to the basic fact. Note though that technically one cannot libel the dead, but of course BLP does apply to recent deaths.--ukexpat (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have now requested that page be locked.--ukexpat (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for protection withdrawn, we appear to have reached a compromise.--ukexpat (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, looks like it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Elisa Gaudet

Elisa Gaudet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kristopher Carpenter (talk · contribs)
Alicia Bowerman (talk · contribs)
Josh Steinbrener (talk · contribs)
KeithCarpenter3 (talk · contribs)

Pure puff piece with copyright violations, just created by an account edit-warring to retain the unacceptable content. See also user sandbox for duplicate, with copyright violations [3]. 99.0.83.243 (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

SPI report now filed. [4]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Michael Spitzer

This article claims that "Michael Spitzer" is the pseudonym of Arthur MacArthur IV. No references that support this are cited. This bio should be deleted— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.58.17 (talk • contribs)

Now tagged for speedy deletion.--ukexpat (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

And deleted.--ukexpat (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Vicki Gunvalson

the article is an advertisement of the person in question, highly nonobjective and of poor quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.20.151 (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Now a one-sentence stub.--ukexpat (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Robby Robinson (bodybuilder)

Some very polar editing going on here. See Andrewa's appeal for input. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

100x foreigner BLPs

Sigh... This has been round WT:BLP before about a year ago after the overwhelming rejection of WP:TENNISNAMES, but seeing as it is an ongoing slow burn edit war on 100x BLPs it probably is worth just linking here. persistent always-on-top editing counter consensus. In an unrelated case one similar edit from another editor was prelude to a ban. Can't really see what the difference is between such an edit to 1x American BLP and 100x foreigner BLPs. Yawns all round, I know. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

K. P. Yohannan

I have concerns with the content on this page. Please check my User Talk page to see my discussion with the original editor. I have posted this here because there is unverified and potentially libelous information on this Biography. I believe the content should be removed and discussed in talk pages before being restored. My comments will be in italics below.

The missionary organisation has been surrounded by controversies events such as Kerala Government filing petition aganist K P Yohannan in High Court[7], - This source only states an allegation and the text here is misleading because it doesn't give any details in an effort to alter NPOV. This text clearly shows bias.

Kerala home minister had requested the help of central investigating agenies in tracking the money trail of Rs 1048 crores received by Gospel Of Asia[8], - this is hardly a "controversy" and looks like a routine audit according to the source. Also, how is this relevant to KP Yohannan. He may be the President, but I don't see how this should be in his biography section.

being accused of land grab [9], - it would be better to actually include details rather than saying something which means nothing

having a submission in the Kerala's High Court that the home department is investigating the functioning of Gospel For Asia[10], - once again, irrelevant in a biography on KP Yohannan

K P Yohannan is not a traditionaly ordained priest. He was paster and it was never occured in the history of any Christian organizations that a pastor was directly declared as a Bishop[11], - Reference doesn't state this

crores collected for charity and rehabilitation of Orphans used to purchace 2800 acres of land in Kerala. [12] - reference doesn't make this statement

On a case filed by the Government Of Kerala the High Court Of Kerala had ordered not to sell the land held by him or create any liability. [15] - hardly a reliable source of information for a Biography

LoveYourNeighbor1 (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I've dealt with some editorialising issues and am looking at some of the other points. I may not get them all. --Dweller (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The English is so mangled and the controversy section so poorly put together, I don't have the head for it, I'm afraid. I've made a start, but I'll let someone else sort this out. --Dweller (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Could use assistance from experienced editors who may be able to reach a nuanced solution for fair coverage. :) I'm not able to help there, since I'm involved as an admin, but there's an RFC on the talk page now that is almost entirely populated by single-purpose editors - at least 12 as of this writing. (The other two are debatable, so I didn't flag them.) It seems quite likely that there is some external struggle being fought-out here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to revisit the “Controversies” section on the K. P. Yohannan page, as well as Gospel for Asia and Believers Church pages, particularly in the presentation of the material.

WP:SOAP clearly condemns “Scandal mongering,” specifically stating that “Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.”

I call into question the intent behind the “Controversies” section on the Believers Church page, as well as the K.P. Yohannan page. Particularly this sentence: “This move stunned the christian community as in a normal course only a priest can become a Bishop and Mr Yohannan was only a pastor.” The word “stunned” connotes opinion rather than objective fact (see WP:YESPOV, point 1), as well as the source that it cited continues in the same vein of presenting very little fact and more speculation about the motives of the individuals involved. There is also no source on the “normal course” described here to become a bishop. Given these facts, I believe this sentence falls short of the “especially high standard” for WP:BLP.

Given the weakness of the previous sentence, the next sentence can hardly be interpreted as an honest attempt at objective journalism, and seems to fall under the same category outlined in WP:SOAP. I would request that the editors reexamine the material presented here and duly consider the relevance of the “Controversies” section in these articles, based on weak sourcing and what appears “Scandal Mongering.”

Finally, according to WP:BLP, “A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.”

If no conviction in court of law has ever been secured against K.P. Yohannan, why should the greater part of his biography be spent discussing poorly sourced allegations? This is particularly applicable in the Gospel for Asia page, where the Controversies section is in the same vein as the Believer’s Church and K.P. Yohannan pages.

I noticed these edits came from the same editor, which raises a red flag. Thanks so much for taking the time to look at this!

LivingIsSimple (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I was able to find a post addressing the allegations about the financial accusations on the Gospel for Asia page. This post contains a download to the affidavits from the government investigation, Case 20812, 2010, High Court of Kerala. Quote from section 15: "As per the returns and other records, the funds are utilized in the most appropriate manner and there is absolutely no chance of diversion of funds to any illegal purpose or there is any nexus with terrorists or fundamentalist groups as alleged in the said petition and those allegations are without any basis or data. As far as the present case, nothing has been found against the above trust."

Investigation Report from Home Ministry of India Government: Home Ministry Exonerates Believers Church

Direct download link to affidavits

LivingIsSimple (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

One more note: The Gospel for Asia page says: "Evangelist K. P. Yohannan, founder of Gospel For Asia, is under the scanner for improper misappropriation of donations received by his trusts."

This implies that K.P. is under active investigation, which is false. The cases that are mentioned were done and ruled upon in 2011. In all cases, K.P. and Believer's Church were exonerated of any wrongdoing.

HappyPmachine (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Diane Gilliam Fisher

Diane Gilliam Fisher has been divorced and wants the married name "Fisher" removed from the title of her article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE3A:8EE0:223:12FF:FE52:FB4F (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, but we need a source for it. Can you provide one? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Also: we don't go by the subject's wishes but rather by how the subject is commonly known. Are there sources calling her Gilliam rather than Fisher? --Orange Mike | Talk 12:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks like she's published under both names. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.aroomofherownfoundation.org/home.php has her with just the one name. It is recent but is it RS enough? Can she try OTRS with a copy of legal documents? Poets may not be published in more common RS very often.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.currentbooks.com/poet-diane-gilliam-wins-gift-of-freedom-award.html Found another.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.cortlandreview.com/features/10/spring/gilliam.html#1 The about page on this source states "The Cortland Review has twice been distinguished with a Forbes "Best of the Web" citation for a literary journal." Should I bring up a page move discussion on the article talk page?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem moving this, so long as we have some sources. If we do (and looks like we do) then let's just move it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you like to do the honors? I may have others stalking my edits.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Done Can I stalk your edits too?

§FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

George Pataki

This article is laughably biased, filled with simplistic cheerleading. I have nothing against the guy, but this is embarrassing. The article also reads, honestly, like it was written by someone whose English was shaky. It's filled with grammatical errors. It ought to be completely rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.177.141 (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have confirmed that the article can be edited by unregistered users, so you are cleared to go ahead with the re-write. Please proceed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Barbara Boxer

The entry for Barbara Boxer is rife with errors. Specifically, the biographical section regarding her pre-political career requires correction. As for example, Boxer is said to have worked as a newspaper reporter during the early seventies, this despite the fact that a multitude of online listings assert instead that she worked as a full fledged newspaper editor. Boxer's wikipedia entry should be updated so as to reflect this ambiguity. One would hope that this issue could be resolved by way of consulting Boxer's official webpage. Unfortunately, Boxer and her staff have opted to omit all reference to her pre-political career. thus leaving this issue un-resolved. Mind you, this is not the only error in the Wikipedia entry. I'm Barbara Boxer's nephew. I know of what I speak. Please refrain from further threats against me. It's imperative that Boxer's entry be corrected so as to properly reflect the record. Please, we must initiate a conversation so as to resolve this dispute in the manner of educated and intelligent people do. thanks, Noel G. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antidisinfodoc (talk • contribs) 21:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The article says Barbara Boxer was a journalist, which seems to be accurate, whatever her specific job description was. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Massoud Barzani

A section has been posted to the Wikipedia Help Desk stating that information about this person is incorrect. I haven't investigated but am listing it here. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The criticism section contains unsourced speculation about "opaque financial systems" possibly hiding corruption that should be removed. The Massoud Barzani's family section is mainly sourced to a wordpress blog. Some of the allegations in that blog are supported by links to other, possibly RS media. The section should be removed, claims examined and any notable & reliably sourced examples reworked into the article...as it is semi'd I cannot clean it myself. regards 149.241.58.254 (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed that section as a blatant BLP violation. The rest of the article needs to be closely examined for compliance.--ukexpat (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Julio_Borges

The article says Borges and another congressman were assaulted by the "National Socialist Party of Venezuela".

Julio Borges

"National Socialism" was the name for the murderous Hitler version of fascism.

According to the article on Venezuela, the party involved is presumably the "United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV)"

Venezuela#Government

Being called a Nazi would be seen as a major insult by most of the communists I know.

Please correct the party name.

79.110.95.2 (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, and the correction has been made. For future reference, you are welcome to correct any errors you might find in articles, such as this one. polarscribe (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Benjamin A. Neil

A request has been posted to the Help Desk. This article needs to be reviewed for possible deletion as notable for one event. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a clear WP:BLP1E to me, but it would probably benefit from discussion at AFD, unless someone wants to PROD it. I'm not seeing that the whole "scandal" rises to significant coverage level, but I might be missing sources. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

John Astin

Patty Duke's official website says Sean Astin is John Astin's real son, not simply adopted by John Astin as the bio on John Astin states.

http://www.officialpattyduke.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.116.28 (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

To be precise, it's on this bio page. Mangoe (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

That bio page dates back as far as 2003, and never seems to have been updated. From Sean Astin's own article we have this link which indicates a conclusive result from a 1994 paternity test, so I think we can disregard the website bio. Mangoe (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hamid Algar

I ran into this biography article and found a section that talks about a controversial event. I first found some unsourced material which I removed myself, but then I wondered if the sources used in this section are in actually neutral enough. The sources essentially belong to one side of the dispute, i.e. the Armenian society. I am therefore writing here to ask for help. As I understand Wikipedia has very strict rules when it comes to biographies of living people.--Kazemita1 (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Neither of the cited sources for the section are reliable sources for contentious material about living people. One is a reprinted press release, the other is reposted from a student journal written by Armenian students. Neither source can thus be considered to present a balanced, neutral or objective view of the incident. Accordingly, I have removed the entire section. polarscribe (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Could use some more eyes on this one. polarscribe (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

[copied from article talk page:] I'll leave my unasked for comment here and will copy to the other venues: it looks like a horribly sourced non-notable incident and it should be removed. Also, if y'all could stop posting in three different places, that would be nice. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ewen Macdonald

There is a mess at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ewen Macdonald, with the nom incorrectly stating that a living person was a murderer (he appears to have been found not guilty). Then the article creator claimed that the subjects' lawyer committed suicide, when all the sources we have say 'suspected suicide'. When I asked the article creator to produce a source or stop making the claim he removed the article space claim but restated the claim in the AfD. Disclaimer: I have a history with the article creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for the misstatement in the nomination. In looking at the article, I saw a section title "The Murder" and concluded that Macdonald was a murderer (speaking of BLP problems...). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Steven G. Kaplan

Steven G. Kaplan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

VINTON2468 (talk · contribs) and Babybirdhouse (talk · contribs) have performed BLP violation and vandalism respectively, over a sustained period of time.
Both accounts appear to be WP:SPAs with the sole purpose of adding negative info to about this BLP to Wikipedia, and removing positive info about the same BLP individual.
The page itself has been cleaned up with sources and referenced info, as I had noticed it after doing a quality improvement project to WP:GA, on the article, Fuck (film).
Requesting admin intervention to address the numerous BLP violations and vandalism of a BLP page by VINTON2468 (talk · contribs) and Babybirdhouse (talk · contribs).

Selected diffs and evidence

VINTON2468 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

BLP violating edits including numerous edit-warring to insert negative allegations sourced only to a website "Ripoff Report": [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

Babybirdhouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Page blanking vandalism with odd edit summaries: [13] [14] [15]

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

While we are often the first "line of defense" for BLP issues, editor behavior is dealt with at WP:AN/I. You will want to copy this verbatim and open a case there for admin perusal. I will agree that some sort of action is required here. That "Ripoff Report" reference is not reliable, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary verification. As far as I can see no other source is available to back up those allegations. This might be some kind of personal vendetta against the subject. An WP:SPI might also be in order here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Reported it to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#BLP_violations_by_two_SPAs_at_Steven_G._Kaplan and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Babybirdhouse. However, the user did it, again, after this report. So something needs to be done about these two users, soon. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I am watching the article and will revert as needed. Remember to notify them of the discussion at ANI as well. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, already done. :) — Cirt (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Mike Baker (CIA officer)

96.241.165.157 appears to be changing sourced information to non-sourced, potentially libelous information on a living person's biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.122.119 (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not sure Baker meets WP:Notability (people) guidelines anyway. CIA agents (cover or otherwise) aren't inherently notable. People who have appeared on Fox TV aren't inherently notable. Presidents of private intelligence firms aren't inherently notable. Script advisers aren't inherently notable. I'm tempted to suggest the best solution is to delete the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hamid Algar

I am resubmitting my query to attract more attention since the previous consensus(can be found on this page) led to an edit war in the article on the basis that there were not enough people attending the discussion. Here is the question:

I ran into this biography article and found a section that talks about a controversial event. I first found some unsourced material which I removed myself, but then I wondered if the sources used in this section are in actually neutral enough. The sources essentially belong to one side of the dispute, i.e. the Armenian society. I am therefore writing here to ask for help. As I understand Wikipedia has very strict rules when it comes to biographies of living people.--Kazemita1 (talk) 20:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Emily Jones

IPuser insisting to the point of 3RR of adding a highly questionable edit.[16] Apteva (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Shared IP, IP warned. Apteva (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  - Watched. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Luke Harding, etc.

I have been having a bit of a battle in these two articles that involve the same issues. The other editor is an IP who is editing from two different addresses but both of which geolocate to Ohio, so I assume it's the same individual. The central question is how the allegations about the FSS should be presented, and although it might appear that it's only the Guardian who is claiming certain things. That's not true. The Guardian is reporting on what others say as well as on their own. Although I haven't read the articles carefully, it may indeed be true that it would be better to have more sources other than the Guardian, but I'm still uncomfortable with the agenda-like changes by the IP. If anyone has time to look at the issues, that would be great.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I found these additional sources about Luke Harding's expulsion but no other sources about a campaign against western journalists. Or the sources I found quoted or directed to the Guardian. Seems like there should be more articles on the campaign but here are the Harding articles. "Luke Harding, 'Guardian' Moscow Correspondent, Expelled From Russia". The Huffington Post. February 7, 2011. Retrieved 3 May 2013.; Corcoran, Jason; Meyer, Henry (February 8, 2011). "Russia expels U.K. reporter Luke Harding, who covered corruption". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 3 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)Coaster92 (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

[17] NYT covers the story and links the affair to Wikileaks, and to Harding's views about Putin et al. Collect (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Eugene Plotkin

For some time now, I have had concerns regarding the page on Eugene Plotkin. When I first came across this page, I was struck by the lack of NPOV and the inconsistencies between the public information available and the Wikipedia article. It was not until recently that I was able to conduct research and make revisions to the article, expanding its scope, adding references, shifting toward a greater NPOV, and adjusting its title to reflect its true notability. The media coverage really centers on a conspiracy involving a group of people and the subject of the article was not notable beyond that group. My extensive revisions were made and posted. A few days later, an editor rolled back my revisions in their entirety. An examination of the page's history shows that this same editor has rolled back multiple other revisions that had been made to the page, essentially treating the page as a private domain. I find this to be unacceptable behavior and would like to have a broader discussion regarding the content of the page. Both my version and the other version are available to be compared. Factchecker25 (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It appears to me that Factchecker25 may have a point - we have an article supposedly about Eugene Plotkin, but in fact devoted almost entirely to an insider trading scheme which also involved five other people. Given that Plotkin seems to be notable for nothing else, I can see no justification whatsoever for having an article about him, rather than one about the insider trading. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The media coverage centers around PLOTKIN's involvement in an insider trading scheme and the media has not come up with a catchy name for it for us to use. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The media coverage discusses all six of the participants in the insider trading scheme, with significant coverage devoted to Pajcin and Shpigelman, and, to a lesser extent, Smith, Renteria, and Schuster. The lack of a catchy name is not a reason to keep an article from following NPOV and discussing the full scope of the scheme. Moreover, a number of titles have been suggested based on media coverage, including "Business Week and Reebok Inside Trading Ring". A title should be descriptive, not catchy as Wikipedia is not a marketing tool but a knowledge base. Factchecker25 (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Factchecker25 has also posted about this article on ANI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It is utterly absurd to suggest that the lack of a 'catchy name' justifies misrepresenting an article about insider trading - the only legitimate topic for Wikipedia, given the involvement of multiple individuals - as a 'biography' of one of those involved, notable for nothing else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that a lack of a catchy name is justification for anything other than there is no obvious landing point IF we determine that the case and not the individual is the primarily notable subject of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter a damn whether there is 'an obvious landing point' - it is a violation of Wikipedia policy to misrepresent an article about a crime involving multiple individuals as a biography of one person, notable for nothing else. Either the insider trading scheme is notable - in which case we should have an article on it - or it isn't, in which case we don't have a biography on Plotkin. This is elementary stuff, and shouldn't need spelling out here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Plotkin it is not so obvious that the community shares your opinion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not suggesting the article be deleted - I am suggesting that it be revised and renamed to cover the only subject matter, as required by Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

renames are clearly options in AfD and were suggested in the AfD and gained no traction. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A simple question. Does the insider trading scheme meet Wikipedia notability guidelines? Please answer yes or no. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I dont know whether the community in revisiting it will determine whether Plotkin who is the subject of feature articles in reliable sources and is the person individually named in relation to the case [18] [19] is the appropriate subject or whether it is the broader scheme. But I do know that they made their opinion known that it was him individually before. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do I get the impression you are being intentionally obtuse? I asked a simple question: Do you think that the insider trading scheme meets Wikipedia notability guidelines? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Media coverage of this scheme consistently mentions Business Week and Reebok Options. I would suggest that the combination of "Business Week" and/or "Reebok" with "Insider Scheme" or similar best captures what is unique about this case and provides a natural landing point. I would love to hear other editors' viewpoints on this as well.Factchecker25 (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is an obvious BLP1E and would likely be deleted as such at another AfD. Moving it to the crime might help avoid that outcome. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

- Actually there were at least 25 separate crimes (insider trading in 25 different stocks over about a year), at least 3 different schemes, e.g. bribing a Grand Juror, repeated pre-publication theft at Business Week, repeated theft of merger info from Merrill Lynch. If you pled guilty and were convicted of pickpocketing 25 times getting $7 million over the course of a year, would that be considered a single event?
- I'll suggest that we all consolidate into one discussion on the article's talk page. No use having ANI, here, and the talk page. It's clear the content is well sourced and is going to stay. The article can certainly be updated, but do watch for SPAs trying to sweep things under the rug (see ANI if you want proof) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  - Yes, in fact this is exactly the sort of thing that is considered 1E at deletion discussions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Domestic terrorism in the United States

An editor is continually adding the Boston Marathon bombing, along with both suspects' names, to the list of notable domestic terrorist attacks. This presumes the guilt of the suspect, at odds with WP:BLPCRIME. It also concludes that this was a terrorist act, before this has been decided by a court. Something like WP:CRYSTALBALL. Editor seems to think the confession to planting a bomb is good enough. I think admitting an act does not equal admitting criminal wrongdoing (see Anders Breivik), and the source used says this confession may not even be admissible. However he is demonized in the media, the guy deserves a trial before Wikipedia calls him a terrorist. Rather than continuing an edit war, I'd appreciate some sort of higher ruling on this matter. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the incident qualifies for the article. WP:PERP says, "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." I think that it is clear to all that coverage is persisting, and that the event will be covered in books by historians as time goes by. The wording should make clear that the younger brother is an accused suspect, and has not yet been convicted. I do not see the need to mention the reported "confession" in the sort of brief mention appropriate for this particular article.

As the living suspect is already identified in the main article Boston Marathon bombings, and we also have an article about the brothers, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, I do not understand why it is inappropriate to mention the living brother briefly as a suspect, not a guilty party, in this article. The bombing has been described as terrorism in a wide range of reliable sources, and is multiple categorized as such. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The inappropriate thing is listing this as a domestic terrorist attack. This would presume the guilt of an American, even if we didn't specifically name the suspect. It's a matter of interpretation, but I read the two opening sentences of BLPCRIME as distinct. All accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. For suspects accused of widely-known crimes such as this, we can (and should) name them as suspects, but in relevant articles, such as the one about the bombing, or the one about the suspects. Here, it more than merely suggests this was terrorism (legally, as opposed to buzzwords like "act of terror" or "terror attack"), and domestic (again presuming guilt of some American). By listing specific names, we strongly suggest these were the actual perpetrators. This is possibly true, but not even close to proven. There hasn't even been a plea or opening statement from prosecutors, let alone presentation of evidence or a verdict. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Carolyn Moos

Carolyn Moos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I came across this bio as another editor was de-fluffing it, and attempted to remove a primary-sourced and fluffy section, and was summarily reverted [20]. For good measure, the article has a B quality assessment. Further eyes on and thoughts re: this appreciated. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I took a look and chimed in on the talk page. I encourage others to do so as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Nina Dobrev

In an official interview for Sofia News Agency(www.novinite.com) Nina Dobrev says "Everyone who knows me knows I am Bulgarian and that I am proud of it!".Here is the link: http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=122426 .If Nina Dobrev herself is saying that she is Bulgarian, then I don't see a logical reason why in her wikipage should be written only Canadian?!Sofia News Agency refers to Nina Dobrev as Bulgarian-Canadian and even one of the references used in the wikipage of Nina Dobrev- NIKKI FINKE, Editor in Chief from deadline.com also refers to her as Bulgarian-Canadian http://www.deadline.com/2011/04/123303/ .If NIKKI FINKE is good enough to be used by other editors in BLP I don't see a logical reason why she wouldn't be good enough to be used by me as a reference. --Dvrt09 (talk) 23:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I just want to clarify something (I'm the editor who directed this here), regarding MOS:BIO. That guideline says that in the first sentence, we may only refer to a living person's nationality, not their ethnicity/descent. The question then becomes, when Dobrev calls herself "Bulgarian", does she mean "of Bulgarian ethnicity" or "of Bulgarian citizenship"? Similarly, is the newspaper saying "Canadian citizen of Bulgarian descent" (like the way we usually use the phrase in the U.S.) or does it mean "dual citizen of Bulgaria and Canada"? I'm not sure how we can tell. The article does currently state further down that she was born in Bulgaria; my personal inclination is always to err on the side of caution w.r.t. ethnicity/citizenship issues, but I can understand the argument that Dvrt09 is making. Outside opinions will be appreciated. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Just say "Canadian, born in Bulgaria" seems the logical move. Collect (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

But Nina Dobrev didn't said "I am born in Bulgaria", she said "I am Bulgarian".The term Bulgarian refers to nationality as well since there is a national state of Bulgaria and the people coming from there are called Bulgarians.Besides as far as I know wiki editors are not supposed to interpret sources but only to use them as references.The real questions here are:1.Do reliable sources refer to Nina Dobrev as Bulgarian-Canadian?Yes, they do!; 2.Does Nina Dobrev say that she is Bulgarian?Yes, she does! --Dvrt09 (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

If there's a reliable source where she says she is Bulgarian, then it would appear that WP:BLPCAT is satisfied. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is! "Everyone who knows me knows I am Bulgarian and that I am proud of it!"-Nina Dobrev for Sofia News Agency(www.novinite.com): http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=122426 --Dvrt09 (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The source looks okay to me. I don't see a problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I could be referring to myself as American (ethnically), but if I don't have American citizenship, I am not legally an American. I think we should be cautious as per the concerns of Qwyrxian above. Nymf _{talk to me} 20:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Many people will emphatically state "I am <ethnicity>!", even if they're a third or fourth generation immigrant to another country. But I just might be willing to let this particular one go, given the variety of sources and the unsourced OR which makes it likely to be true. Just a side note: do we know that both Bulgaria and Canada allow dual citizenship? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

@Nymf I already said that wiki editors are not supposed to interpret sources and to say what they mean or what they don't mean.Besides Nina Dobrev is not "third or fourth generation immigrant", she is native to Bulgaria and born there under the name Николина Костантинова Добрева!The facts are that Nina Dobrev herself claims to be Bulgarian and the term Bulgarian refers to nationality as well since there is a national state of Bulgaria and the people coming from there are called Bulgarians-exactly the case of Nina Dobrev! --Dvrt09 (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian According to this information Canadian law permits dual or multiple citizenships: http://travel.gc.ca/travelling/publications/dual-citizenship Another source confirms that both Bulgaria and Canada recognise dual citizenship: http://www.thelaw.com/guide/immigration/dual-citizenship-countries-list/ --Dvrt09 (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian According to the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria: Chapter 2, Article 25 (1):"...anyone who was born on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria is a Bulgarian citizen" ; (3): "A Bulgarian citizen by birth may not be deprived of his Bulgarian citizenship". Here is the link : http://www.investbulgaria.com/laws/constitution.pdf --Dvrt09 (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Another source about the Constitution of Bulgaria: "Constitution-Making in the region of the former Soviet dominance" by Rett R Ludwikowski page 353-354 Here is the link: http://books.google.bg/books?id=qw8o0_c0m74C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Constitution-Making+in+the+region+of+the+former+Soviet+dominance&hl=en&sa=X&ei=48B0Ue_2CMPStQbNrIGgBA&redir_esc=y --Dvrt09 (talk) 04:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Nina Dobrev was born in Bulgaria and according to the Constitution of Bulgaria this makes her automatically Bulgarian citizen.Besides Nina claims herself to be Bulgarian so everything looks pretty clear to me. --Dvrt09 (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Saying "She was born in Bulgaria, the constitution of Bulgaria says that people born in Bulgaria are citizens, therefore she is a citizen" is prohibited WP:OR. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

But saying "she is Bulgarian" -- using a source where she says "I am Bulgarian" -- is not prohibited WP:OR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding @Nomoskedasticity. If Nina's own words are not important then I don't know what is?! I see double standard in wikipedia:(( "Everyone who knows me knows I am Bulgarian and that I am proud of it!"-Nina Dobrev for Sofia News Agency(www.novinite.com): http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=122426 --Dvrt09 (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Her own words aren't any good here because they are ambiguous--it's not clear whether she means she is a Bulgarian citizen or whether she is of Bulgarian ethnicity. Ken Arromdee (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries, Ken -- we don't have to be any more specific than she was. We can just say "she is Bulgarian" -- consistent with the source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

@Ken Arromdee I already said multiple times that wiki editors are not supposed to interpret sources and to say what they mean or what they don't mean, but only to use them as references!!Besides according to the law in Bulgaria she is Bulgarian citizen by birthright and saying that she is only canadian is nothing more than a lie and false information!! --Dvrt09 (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

So I'm seeing a consensus here that we can't be sure that she meant "Bulgarian citizen". If that is the case, then we cannot say "Bulgarian-Canadian" in the lead, but we can state somewhere later, "In an interview, Dobrev stated "I am Bulgarian"." Does that seem reasonable? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is. Someone has already made the point that the lead, in saying she is "a Canadian actress", implies quite strongly that Canadian is the only citizenship she holds. In that respect it is evidently misleading, a disservice to our readers and an insult to her to the extent that the Bulgarian element of her identity is important to her. On the basis of that latter point, I favor "Canadian/Bulgarian" in the lead. What gets in the way, apparently, is MOSBIO -- though there is some wiggle room in what it says about ethnicity. To the extent that MOSBIO is getting in the way here, that seems like a problem with MOSBIO. If editors are nonetheless going to insist on slavishly following it, then WP:BLP in my reading would lead to removing any mention of citizenship from the lead. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with you @Nomoskedasticity!This is the reason why there are complains about this article on the talk page of Nina Dobrev."Canadian actress" really implies the she has only one canadian citizenship without sources to prove this and at the same time it downplays her Bulgarian element which is very important for her.I hope a solution can be found on how to balance this article better. --Dvrt09 (talk) 12:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

All of this stuff -- and it appears 1. she calls hereself "Bulgarian" but does not assert she is a Bulgarian citizen. 2. She has Canadian citizenship, which no one seems to regard as a contentious claim. 3. We have no standard for saying that hyphens assert citizenship, or whether they assert national identification, or whether they assert ancestry. Ergo: It is reasonable for us to call her a Canadian citizen who is Bulgarian by birth, avoiding any possible misuse of hyphens here. It is not required or even logical that we find a source stating a negative, which means we can not assume she has dual citizenship, or, more tellingly, separate passports. Absent positive statements that she is in that category, it would by OR for Wikipedia to make that assumption. BTW, a person saying "I am Italian" in the US generally means "Italian ancestry" and not "citizenship." Collect (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

What I mean about "canadian actress" was that the way it is written mislead people to beleive that Nina Dobrev is related only and only to Canada which couldn't be further from the truth.The complaints on the talk page are exactly about this.That's why I suggest to write that she is "Bulgarian with Canadian citizenship" this has the same meaning like your suggestion "Canadian citizen who is Bulgarian by birth" but with less words.I also think this would be more accurate because Nina refers to herself as Bulgarian without specifying anything and I think it would be better to leave it that way to be consistent with the source.And when we write "Bulgarian with Canadian citizenship" we acknowledge the fact that she does have canadian citizenship but at the same we leave some space to the possibility that she may have another citizenship as well, because we don't specify what the term Bulgarian refers to exactly like Nina did in her interview.About the italians you are talking about-How many of them are born in US and how many of them are born in Italy?!Paul Wesley for example is born to polish parents, but he is born in US and he has nothing to do with the country Poland.Nina Dobrev is exactly the opposite case-she is born in Bulgaria and related to this country. --Dvrt09 (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

MOSBIO says that ethnicity can be emphasized in the opening if it is relevant to the subject's notability.Yes it is relevant, Nina stars as Katherine Pierce(Katerina Petrova) on The CW American television teen drama "The Vampire Diaries".Katherine Pierce was chosen to be a Bulgarian lady because of Nina's ethnicity.Some of the events in The Vampire Diaries take place in Nina's native country Bulgaria like Season 2 Episode 9 where we see in the opening scene, Katherine Pierce giving birth in the year 1492 in Bulgaria and talking in bulgarian language with her family.Clearly Nina's ethnicity helped her with the role of Katherine Pierce who became the only Bulgarian character on American television.This is an interview with Nina Dobrev made by Sara Bibel: http://xfinity.comcast.net/blogs/tv/2011/03/03/vampire-diaries-nina-dobrev-sinks-her-teeth-into-dual-role/ Sara Bibel asked Nina:"Did the writers make Katherine Bulgarian because you were born in Bulgaria?" Nina replied:"In the books, Katherine comes from a German heritage. It may be because I’m Bulgarian, but I think we all agreed that Bulgaria has a sense of mystique that is strangely unique. Plus, it doesn’t hurt that I already speak Bulgarian. The writers heard me speaking Bulgarian to my mom on the phone while I was on set one day. One thing led to the other and voila!" --Dvrt09 (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

her candianness and her bulgarianness are not equal. and so, to solve the problem one needs to mention what it is about each, since the single word canadian and single word bulgarian are not sufficient, even if combined like canadian/bulgarian, which would imply equality (citizenship, country of birth, where she grew up, went to school, etc.). so, something like Canadian citizen who is Bulgarian by birth, or in reverse, would be fine, and appropriate based on RS and all other policies. Soosim (talk) 10:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Her canadianness is only her citizenship.Her Bulgarianness is her Country of origin,DNA,family and relatives:)You can change your citizenship whenever you want but you can't change your origin and DNA:))Once born Bulgarian, always Bulgarian:))Anyway what do you think about "Bulgarian with Canadian citizenship", "Bulgarian by birth with Canadian citizenship" or "Bulgarian by birth who is Canadian citizen"?! --Dvrt09 (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

DNA? Seriously? As an argument on Wikipedia? Nah ... but it is a great argument not to call her Bulgarian when so expressed. Collect (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

dlv - not sure about your pov use of 'only' (canandianness is only her citizenship). some people are very proud of their citizenship. and she left bulgaria at age two, right? so she might not even care about being bulgarian. of course, she says she is proud of that too. so, how about: "born in bulgaria and raised in canada". then later, we can say that is proud to be bulgarian and that is a canadian citizen. (we're talking about the lede, right?) Soosim (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

@Soosim Agree with your suggestion:))Yes, we are talking about the lead.About "canadian" as far as I know this term refers only to citizenship because there is no such thing as canadian ethnicity.And when I said DNA I was refering to ethnicity.Is DNA a forbidden word in wikipedia?!I am a new editor and I don't know all the wiki rules... --Dvrt09 (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

No, but DNA precedes any states or statelike organizations. There is simply no "Bulgarian" DNA; where would you like to draw the line, historically? Lectonar (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC) And if you look back even farther: would it be Thracian DNA then? Ethnicity simply does not equal DNA. Lectonar (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Of Course in general DNA precedes any states or statelike organizations.But the population of some european countries have specific Genetic markers,IGENEA for example make DNA maps based on country of origin. --Dvrt09 (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

And? That is a very unspecific remark, and no breaking news......and, btw, IGENEA just samples for region of origin (and uses the word "Urvolk" for associating it to tribes/people like Vikings, Celts etc.), all that only in the time spam 900BC to 900AD. Which is in itself no argument for a Bulgarian DNA, provided there are special markers inherent to Bulgarians. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

@Lectonar If you want we can continue our discussion on my talk page,because we will be offtopic if we continue here:))I would be happy to argue with you :))Regards --Dvrt09 (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You brought up the DNA for discussion, so this is not off-topic, and no, I do see no need for further "arguing". Someone will close this thread sooner or later (not me, btw), and will take into account the arguments as presented.Lectonar (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, but I don't agree with you:)As i said some european countries have specific genetic markers... --Dvrt09 (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

@Collect What is this supposed to mean?!Is this how new editors are treated in wikipedia?!Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers --Dvrt09 (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I fully follow Wiki-precepts about newcomers. That does not encompass, however, catering to those who believe there is a genetic nationality which can be ascribed to anyone. Including "some european countries have specific genetic markers." Collect (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Where did I said that there is a genetic nationality.Yes according to dna labs some nationalities have specific genetic markers because their population is more homogenous for example countries like japan, china, russia etc.What is your problem really?!Anyway this is not the topic here... --Dvrt09 (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually it appears to be precisely the topic - as to why it is "important" to you that she be labelled as "Bulgarian." China, by the way, has more than fifty "nationalities" and is certainly not as "homogeneous" as you appear to think. Wikipedia is not the place to promote "racial purity" as a "nationality" in any case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, as a German I wanted to stay away from mentioning racial purity, out of reasons that should be obvious....but I feel I must concur with Collect here. Lectonar (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

@Collect So now you are putting words in my mouth?!Where did I said "racial purity"?!If you can't find these words in my posts,you should apologize!!I am sick and tired from the arrogant attitude from some editors towards me just because I am new!! --Dvrt09 (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, assume good faith and even assume the assumption of good faith. You are trying to lift this to a level which has nothing to do with with the article or your edit-request; this is not personal, you know. Lectonar (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

He(@Collect) made it personal!!If there is a little honor in him,he should apologize to me for accusing me of something that I never said!!Anyway I will not respond to other provocations... --Dvrt09 (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I was not sure whether to add this source or not,but finally I decided that it is better to be here.In a Funny or Die music video with Nick Braun called SPF, Nina Dobrev says again that she is Bulgarian and she even shows a map of her country Bulgaria.After the "The Vampire Diaries" where she plays the role of the Bulgarian lady Katherine Pierce, this music video again clearly shows that being Bulgarian is relevant to her notability and something important for her.This source is already used as a reference in her wiki page.Here are the links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7r_mvVVg08 http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/3d673108bf/spf-with-nina-dobrev --Dvrt09 (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we should also add ethnic category in the infobox as well since it is relevant to her notability and Nina also says herself that she is Bulgarian. --Dvrt09 (talk) 07:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

And for me, the topic is now done, becuse Dvrt09 has completely crossed over to nonsense arguments. Her ethnicity is not in any way related to her notability. She is notable as an actress. Period. She is not a Bulgarian freedom fighter, a leader of a prominent Bulgarian civil rights groups, etc. Nor is she regularly labelled as Bulgarian, like "The first Bulgarian to do X in Canada/the US". She just happens to be Bulgarian. The fact that they played the video in the show does not make her famous specifically for being Bulgarian. And the fact that you're willing to go this far shows that this is not about improving the encyclopedia in a way that is compliant with WP:BLP. Qwyrxian (talk)`

This is not even my main argument.Saying "she is Bulgarian" -- using a source where she says "I am Bulgarian" -- is not prohibited WP:OR."Everyone who knows me knows I am Bulgarian and that I am proud of it!"-Nina Dobrev for Sofia News Agency(www.novinite.com): http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=122426 Nina became famous with "The Vampire Diaries" show where she plays the role of Katherine Pierce who was chosen to be a Bulgarian lady because of Nina's ethnicity http://xfinity.comcast.net/blogs/tv/2011/03/03/vampire-diaries-nina-dobrev-sinks-her-teeth-into-dual-role/ .Nina is notable for playing the role of "the only Bulgarian character on American television(Katherine Pierce)".Her ethnicity is quite relevant to her career and notability!!The complaints about this article on the talk page show that I am right!!Besides MOSBIO is satisfied!!It is also a fact that some editors don't want the word "Bulgarian" to be written in the article despite all the sources.I would think that someone want to mislead the readers intentionally!! --Dvrt09 (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No one here has said "Bulgaria" is not to be mentioned -- only that the most logical course is to accurately state she was born there. Claims about DNA etc. do not impress folks here, and thus most of your posts actually undermine your position. Collect (talk) 07:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

@Collect I hope you realize that I am complete newbie in wikipedia, but another editor helped me with some ideas and I know that my main arguments above your post are pretty good and strong.If we write only that she is born in Bulgaria without mentioning that she is bulgarian(ethnicity) this could be misleading because a lot of other ethnic groups(armenians, russians) live in Bulgaria but they are only citizens not ethnic bulgarians and they don't identify themselves as such.Besides all my posts were made in good faith-I realize that I lack experience, but I am still learning. --Dvrt09 (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It was not a pleasant surprise for me to see that some editors are fighting tooth and nail not to write that she is also Bulgarian in the article despite the reliable sources and the fact that I proved that her ethnicity is relevant to her notability-"Katherine became the only Bulgarian character on American television."-Sara Bibel.I find this attitude very offensive and discriminative to her fans,to the bulgarian community and to Nina herself.After all this is her wiki page and if she says that she is "Bulgarian and proud of it", let it be... --Dvrt09 (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Since I already proved my point and since my main arguments and sources are in accordance with WP:NOR and WP:MOSBIO, I expect the other editors to leave their feelings aside and to follow the wiki policy.I will post here once again my main arguments and sources to emphasize them: "Saying "she is Bulgarian" -- using a source where she says "I am Bulgarian" -- is not prohibited WP:OR."Everyone who knows me knows I am Bulgarian and that I am proud of it!"-Nina Dobrev for Sofia News Agency(www.novinite.com): http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=122426 Nina became famous with "The Vampire Diaries" show where she plays the role of Katherine Pierce who was chosen to be a Bulgarian lady because of Nina's ethnicity http://xfinity.comcast.net/blogs/tv/2011/03/03/vampire-diaries-nina-dobrev-sinks-her-teeth-into-dual-role/ .Nina is notable for playing the role of "the only Bulgarian character on American television(Katherine Pierce)".Her ethnicity is quite relevant to her career and notability which means that WP:MOSBIO is satisfied." Also I would like to remind that: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources...NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." --Dvrt09 (talk) 06:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

My proposition for improving the article is the following:1.In the opening paragraph instead of "Canadian actress" it can be written that she is "Canadian citizen who is Bulgarian by birth" or vice versa like other editors already suggested.We can also write that she plays the role of Katherine Pierce who "became the only Bulgarian character on American television" and use this source as a reference: http://xfinity.comcast.net/blogs/tv/2011/03/03/vampire-diaries-nina-dobrev-sinks-her-teeth-into-dual-role/ 2.In the infobox under nationality(canadian) it can be added ethnicity(bulgarian) since its relevant to her career and notability as explained above.3.Somewhere in the article it can be written that she is "proud of being Bulgarian" and the other source can be used as a reference here: http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=122426 Are there any objections?! --Dvrt09 (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

"born in Bulgaria" was what I suggested a long way back -- using multiple mentions of "Bulgarian" is UNDUE in almost all cases unless the "only Bulgarian character" has a much stronger source - it looks like a TV show PR blurb item here. Collect (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok,let's try to reach consensus.Your suggestion for the opening paragraph was "Canadian citizen who is Bulgarian by birth".Do we have agreement about that?! --Dvrt09 (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way the source used as a reference in the opening paragraph of Nina's wiki page is Crissy Calhoun's book "Love You To Death: The Unofficial Companion to The Vampire Diaries".Well one of the sources used in Crissy Calhoun's book, is indeed Sara Bibel from xfinity.comcast.net .If Sara Bibel is not good enough then you should discard Crissy Calhoun as well since she uses Sara's articles as reliable sources.Besides exactly this article(http://xfinity.comcast.net/blogs/tv/2011/03/03/vampire-diaries-nina-dobrev-sinks-her-teeth-into-dual-role/) is used as a source in Crissy Calhoun's book "Love You to Death - Season 2: The Unofficial Companion to The Vampire Diaries":http://books.google.bg/books?id=NqAcT09XJhUC&pg=PT393&dq=Sara+Bibel%2Bcomcast&hl=bg&sa=X&ei=Z-mDUa2DGM_OsgbgmoHwAg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA If my source is good enough for Crissy Calhoun's book then I don't see a logical reason why it wouldn't be good enough for wikipedia which uses Crissy Calhoun's books as reliable sources in BLP articles.Also xfinity.comcast.net is not a no name,personal or a fan site; it belongs to Comcast Corporation-owner of NBCUniversal which makes the content published there more likely to be true.My source is stronger then 90% of the sources used in BLP articles and the fact that it is also published in a book speaks well enough for itself. --Dvrt09 (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Since I proved the reliability of my sources I want to ask-are there any other objections?! --Dvrt09 (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This case shows very well why there are so many complaints about wikipedia.Obviously some "editors" are above the rules.Reliable sources are discarded even if they are in accordance with all necessary wiki rules, just because someone doesn't like them.But what I find ridiculous and utterly preposterous is the fact that it is not mentioned even once in the entire article that she is Bulgarian despite the sources and Nina's self identification as Bulgarian."Born in Bulgaria" does NOT equal Bulgarian(ethnicity) since there are other ethnic groups who are born and live there(armenians,russians etc.).If this is not an extreme POV-pushing then I don't know what it is.Misleading the readers is against NPOV which is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia.Anyway I want to thank the editors who are objective and who are trying to make wikipedia better and more reliable but I am afraid that their efforts will be pointless with such POV-ish articles... --Dvrt09 (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Alistair Moffat

I declined a request for the deletion of this article. It appears that the section BritainsDNA is the cause of the contention, and an edit war has taken place. Have protected for one week, and would ask for your views on this section. Stephen! ^Coming... 09:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The contentious section is well referenced. (I created the section, an IP editor expanded it and added most of the references.) One reference is from Nature, which had an article on Moffat's use of threats of libel to try to silence those who were criticising the obviously false (denied by his own company) statements he had made. The deletions have been by IP editors, by the single-purpose account User:Detaerc, and by User:MRobertsQC. MRobertsQC's contributions to Wikipedia almost all praise Moffat (like this one). None of these editors has explained the reason for their deletions, or indicated what statements in the section they consider libellous. Maproom (talk) 10:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

(Obviously) I have also reverted the IP/casual users. The section in question could use a bit of a rewrite (it reads to me like it begs a question and then goes ahead and answers itself), but otherwise seems fine and reasonably well sourced. Another source or two wouldn't hurt either. DP76764 (Talk) 14:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The section in question represents an biased view of a small group of people who clearly have a personal vendetta against the subject. The content may be referenced, but what is not clear is that most of these documents are authored by a very small, select group of people who are all associates. It gives disproportionate space to a particular viewpoint. For this reason, the content does not present an accurate view of the issues at hand and only provides a platform for further harassment. There is no need for this page, all this content is available elsewhere, which is why I recommend it be removed completely. Furthermore, it seems that the creator of the content, does not have an objective view, given that he stated above that the libel was to try to silence criticism of obviously false statements. This is not what it says in the Nature article. The libel was to silence defamatory comments which have not be disclosed. Therefore this editor in particular cannot be seen to be presenting a balanced or neutral viewpoint. This is why the content should be removed.Detaerc (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You wrote "There is no need for this page, all this content is available elsewhere". I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. It aims only to include content which is supported by material available elsewhere. Incidentally – I have no personal vendetta against Moffat, and I am not an "associate" of any contributor to the article. I had never heard of any of them before I read the Nature article. Maproom (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Apologies - I had not intended to imply that you were associated with them. My issue is that nearly all of the sources cited here are authored by this small group of individuals, thus creating a biased viewpoint. Detaerc (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Dp76764 that the section is valid and could use some tweaking. There's a couple articles about Moffat's threats and academic freedom in The Saint, St Andrew's student newspaper, noted in the Nature piece. The fact that the university's academic senate concluded that its own rector (Moffat) was stifling academic debate is worth noting. The senate's conclusion is noted in the last two links.

Rector assessed: Moffat blasted over "laughable" scientific claims The Saint
University slams Moffat for stifling debate The Saint
The right to speak out Nature

--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Birth date ambiguity

Is there any recent guideline about conflictive birth date sourcing - if we have strong sources that give various dates? WP:BLP says that no info is better than dodgy info. Many BLP articles seem to have settled for scratching the birth date altogether where there is no definitive, conclusive source. I understand that public records, such as birth records, are not permissible as references, so short of the subject publicly stating their birth date I'm not sure how DoBs can be conclusively verified by WP. The question seems to be coming up a lot all over the place. Please advise. Thanks. Span (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

For living or recently deceased subjects, consensus seems to be that if there is no reliable source for a birth date, it can be removed altogether. If there are multiple conflicting sources, a note can be added to that effect - e.g., John Smith (January 1, 1900 or 1901^[1])...' where it would be stated that sources differ. If there is a specific privacy issue we've been made aware of, and the date has no encyclopedic value, we default to removing it. In the case of people who write requesting this via OTRS, if the subject or his representatives can prove that the birth date we have is incorrect, but no reliable secondary source exists, we tend to remove it as well. You're right in that we cannot use primary sources, so we can't go looking at birth records and the like, because that would also be original research. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"You're right in that we cannot use primary sources, so we can't go looking at birth records and the like, because that would also be original research" -- with all due respect, that is a serious MISUNDERSTANDING of the 'original research' rule. there is absolutely nothing wrong with using government records as a source. requiring someone to "loopback" via some third-party article, for birth information taken from an official record to be considered "valid" for sourcing would be unreasonably obtuse, & also "just plain nuts". Lx 121 (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY is extremely clear about this. As to whether or not digging for birth records or whatever constitutes "original research" in the strict sense of the term may be up to for discussion in some contexts, but not in the context of BLPs, and that's what we're talking about here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Span (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Should a talk page discussion be deleted?

In this talk page discussion Talk:List_of_Freemasons#OK.2C_here.27s_a_predicament... there seems to be a bit of harmless celebrity banter about a reasonably well known actor asking whether he should be "outed" as a Freemason. The only problem is is that he is from a Catholic family (at least according to his Wikipedia biography) and so the chances are reasonably high that he is a practicing Catholic, and membership of Freemasonry (particularly active Freemasonry) is still an offence that will get a Catholic automatically excommunicated. The actual discussion makes it clear that he should not be outed if he's a Catholic.

Should I delete this conversation?

JASpencer (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I kind of doubt that it would make much difference either way, but I do not see any problem with deleting it. Apteva (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the logic in "...he is from a Catholic family...and so the chances are reasonably high that he is a practicing Catholic". HiLo48 (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo48 that assuming "he is a practicing Catholic" because "he is from a Catholic family" is a tenuous conclusion. I don't think his Catholic standing is a paramount consideration either. The BLP issue is the speculative outing based on statements of original research. I don't see a problem deleting the content on that basis alone. My76Strat (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

From WP:BLP, "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." and "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." A reasonbable possibility of harm has been shown at least on a subjective level (as has been shown in the discussion where they said that this should not be done in these very circumstances). JASpencer (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Canon 1374 A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty - one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict. This is not latae sententiae excommunication; it is not automatic; it is not even specified for one who merely joins! Elizium23 (talk) 04:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Teesta Setalvad

Teesta Setalvad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a controversial left wing Indian political activist, so both IPs and established editors edit her article from their own povs, which is ok if done according to our policies. There is a tendency to put up critical material from news sources that may be trivial as they've had little coverage (and perhaps no response in the media from her supporters) and that's against our policies and guidelines. An EL has been added - *Teesta Stelvad has been also accused of Minting money from Gujrat Riot victims, a RTI (Right to information Act) discloses, News Express reports. According to the YouTube page, dated March 13th, "Ahmedabad Crime Branch is likely to conduct an inquiry into activist Teesta Setalvad's collection of funds for Gulbarg Society. The residents had alleged that Teesta had collected donations in the name of Gulbarg Society and had not distributed the money." It obviously doesn't belong as an EL and an editor is saying it could be used as a source and is material not in the article, but not only is this discussed on the talk page, "likely to conduct an inquiry" indicated it doesn't belong in the article. Sorry this if this is confusing, IRL is in the way and I'm trying to wind down for a wikibreak. Dougweller (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There were ten[21] news stories quoted which were saying the same thing as this eleventh one (the News Express video), the stories have been carried by IBN, Zeenews, Asian Age, India TV, The Indian Express, The Sunday Guardian whose editor in chief is M. J. Akbar, and Niti Central, which is headed by Kanchan Gupta.

The youtube video that Dougweller cites here is a Indian Express group story, which is quite wp:RS. It is surprising that Dougweller calls these sources trivial and the coverage little.

The external link was added by a new editor, Dougweller reverted it with the edit summary to the effect "material already in article, shouldn't have an EL", which was a misrepresentation of facts as material wasn't there in the article.

It is a heads I win tales you loose situation, on 14 March, 2013,[22] Dougweller removed the accusations of financial misconduct, the matter was discussed on the talk page, to which they didn't respond, when it was added subsequently they deleted carrying edit summary taken to BLPN, almost 2 month old report that says an inquiry might be conducted, that doesn't belong anywhere in the article[23]

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Jordi Bertomeu

He is referred as a clown and a supporter of Barcelona and CSKA basketball fan probably written by a panathinaikos dissapointed fan after the series of criticism for 2012/2013 games of panathinaikos against those teams. Furthermore he is referred as the CEO of CSKA Euroleague basketball rather than Turkish airlines Euroleague basketball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.12.177.78 (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The only cite did not support most of the claims made. Collect (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Mica Mosbacher

Mica Mosbacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I brought this here a week or two ago, and another editor prodded it. Since then it was de-prodded, and I've been backing and forthing with a WP:SPA who just removes the templates without discussion or explanation. My first question is whether the subject meets notability guidelines, or is benefiting primarily from proximity to others. At the least I'm setting the stage for a more thorough removal of unsourced and puffy content, which I'd already begun. Further thoughts appreciated, 99.136.252.252 (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If notability is a concern here, WP:AFD is the next step. If we remove everything that's unsourced or relies on inherited notability, there will be very little left. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. I've looked at it and done the Google search, and think there's probably enough for a short article--the primary claim to notability appears to be as Honorary Consul to Iceland, thin stuff at that, but there may be enough additional mentions as a socialite/philanthropist/political activist to keep. If someone thinks this merits AfD, fine, but until then I'd appreciate some watchlisting and cover, lest anyone misconstrue removal of unsourced content. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Overly promotional article Sasikrishnan

Can some other editors please have a look at the recently created Sasikrishnan article? It seems to have been created by someone closely connected with the subject, an Indian artist, and while it appears to pass the basic notability criteria, having received press coverage in India at least, the author insists that there is no problem with what I see as an overly promotional resume-style tone to the whole article, and has now twice removed maintenance tags highlighting these issues. --DAJF (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Adam Kokesh

Kokesh's daddy is a bankrupt venture capitalist. The Santa Fe Horse Park was taken over by the mortgage holder, Los Alamos National Bank I believe - and is currently leased out in several portions to various businesses.

It's right across the valley from me and we've been watching the soap opera for a spell.

I imagine anyone searching the Santa Fe New Mexican can pull up this info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.152.233 (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't really do soap opera here, sorry. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Liza Tarbuck

More for keeping an eye on rather than requiring any immediate action. Her father, Jimmy Tarbuck is being questioned about sexual assault. Nothing (as far as I can tell) is being reported in the media about any connections to Liza. I've just reverted an edit that linked to a news article about his arrest that was being used as citation that Jimmy is Liza's dad.

I've semi-protected the page and added a note on the talk page about BLP and cautious editing. Any additional monitoring would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Stephen! ^Coming... 16:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Watched. Thanks for the heads up. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

John Parr

"his band was known as the best thing going in Newcastle." "and the album went on to win many awards around the world."

this reads like a press pack, not an encyclopedia entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.117.150.71 (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, definitely needs improvement. It's not currently protected in any way - so anyone is free to improve it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Goodluck Jonathan

There is edit warring over this article. More eyes are needed there. I am happy for another admin to drop full-protection if there is productive discussion and I am not around or otherwise occupied. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

RUFF PRODUCER

BIOGRAPHY OF RUFF MFANAFUTHI NKOSI

Collapsing text of draft article.--ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Born Mfanafuthi Ruff Nkosi in a small town of Siteki, Swaziland. Ruff is better known as one of the most promising producer and composer South Africa and Africa is yet better recognize. He moved back home in South Africa at very early age where he was raised in a small town of Malelane, Mpumalanga Province. Ruff started producing music since 2008 and subsequently, he proclaimed his status and role in the music business to become a self thought arranger, composer and producer. Along with his long time home friend and now turned business partner Nhlonipho Brilliant Sithole (aka SK), together they form one of the finest sound engineers and producer team to emerge from the streets of Jozi. Being noticed and approached by many established artists looking for thumbing beats, Ruff remains rooted in his game and continues to learn, dedicate and refine his own creativity by working with young sound engineers, musicians and friends. He met his long time home friend SK while they performed together at different music competitions as dancers in Malelane during school days. New discoveries in music kept him going on and on wanting to work more hours in studio till early hours producing, mixing or learning something new in his studio. Ruff is an individual who believes in learning more from others and the reward and inspiration as he says; comes from hearing his music on radio airwaves across Southern Africa for where the hard work and his music is appreciated by DJ’s and fans. Ruff attended high school at Shayaza Combined School in Malelane where he completed Grade twelve (matric); he never received any further education or any other formal training in music. He pursued his love for music and the music career flourished more rapidly to where he had to learn everything by observation, trial and error. Ruff qualifies his success to committed hard work, listening skills and being able to humble himself at all times, he learned and worked on different music software’s including basic FRUITY LOOPS, CU-BASE, REASON and to date FRUITY LOOPS is still to date his most favourite programming software. Music software and its evolution is good source from where Ruff draws and shows his passion and energy to produce thumping beats. The breakthrough in the music game came and arrived at the time when he had to produce a title track for “CASH-TIME FAM”. In 2011, Ruff produced a Hit titled track “NO GOOD” for “CASH TIME FAM” followed by next track titled; “RUNNING LATE” for the ‘NOW OR NEVER” album. In 2009, Ruff joined forces with SK and together as they are better known, they have invested and established a recording studio operating in the heart of Johannesburg CBD. Today Dogmow Recording Studio is popularly known as one of the best music production house in the streets of Joburg. The Studio has to date recorded and produced titles for artists such as Cash Time Fam, L-Tido, 4Front, Sphum, Gtroy, Maggz, F-Easy, Da Les, MOTIF and many other aspiring artists. Recently, Ruff has composed and produced Hit track titled; “MATTE BLACK” for DA LES; also he has worked with MAGGZ for where he produced new single titled; “CHANGE”. Many aspiring artists choose to re-collect and gather ideas to sharpening their skills at Dogmow Recording Studios for where music genres such as Hip hop, House, R&B, Kwaito, Rock, Pop including Gospel flows in the melting cooking pot as a way of life. Ruff has one older brother, three little brothers, two sisters and his only son Ruff Junior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amalamez (talk • contribs) 10:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Notability (people) for a description of the criteria used to decide whether a person is sufficiently notable for an article in Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Murders of Christine and Amber Lundy

On Talk:Murders of Christine and Amber Lundy in this series of edits, User:Offender9000 said of Nigel Latta: "Latta made it up and Wikipedia does not validate pseudo psychological disorders on behalf of populist TV psychologists trying to make a buck out of other peoples misery. The "diagnosis" suggests bias and doesn't meet criteria for NPOV. It also contravenes WP:BLP [...]". That reads as an attack to me, but I'm a involved party; could someone else please take a look? Stuartyeates (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

At some point someone is going to have to take a good hard look at the editing of Offender9000 (talk · contribs). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I was involved with Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Offender9000, but it went nowhere. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It went nowhere because SimonLyall who initiated the request was unwilling to accept a compromise put forward by the mediator and then withdrew from mediation.Offender9000 (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Could I please get some external feedback on this comment which says: "Yes he has been convicted. But that doesn't mean he did it." Stuartyeates (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The statement as such is of course correct. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course. What else could one say about the statement? Offender9000 (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Libel (or other criminal qualification) in article "Martin van Rijn"

Resolved

– vandalism reverted--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

seems unacceptable behaviour by editor 2001:4c98:2:0:3c9b:8577:aba8:71bc

I think appropriate measures against this editor should be taken.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Baltshazzar (talk • contribs)

This was a single incident of vandalism which was not restored once removed. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio

Can someone please take a look at the "Other family members" section in the article about the kidnapped females in Cleveland, and this related talk page thread as soon as possible? Is an "Other family members" section even appropriate? The paragraph that is by far the most concerning is the third paragraph, which talks about the completely unrelated crimes of one of the suspects' daughters, and the fact that she once tried to commit suicide. Wow, what does any of that content about a suspect's daughter have to do with the subject of the article?? Nothing! Can some experienced editors please review the entire section and remove whatever is inappropriate and violates policies or guidelines? The entire section was removed last night, but someone reverted it. Perhaps some of it is notable and relevant to the article, but I'll let those much more experienced with BLP issues decide that. Btw, someone really needs to set User:Legacypac straight on BLP policy. Read his comments in the talk page thread. Thanks! --o76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: Based on the talk page discussion, which includes agreement from an admin, an editor has just removed the most inappropriate content in the section with this edit. Whether another editor will revert it, I don't know. But I think if any editor re-adds that outrageously inappropriate content, they should be blocked from editing for awhile. In any case, the remaining content, and just having the section itself, should still be carefully reviewed. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that there are now several people proposing to move the page in such a way to assert as a fact that kidnappings took place. I cannot see this as anything but a gross violation of WP:BLP policy - there have been no convictions for kidnapping, and such assertions can only be prejudicial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not a BLP vio to assert that a crime took place. Federales (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The article is about the event, and narrowly about the people directly involved in it. It's not about one of the alleged perpetrator's second cousin's former landlord's mother in law's 3rd grade history teacher that did something bad this one time at band camp, and some enterprising reporter dug up to get more page views on his juicy story. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that the move discussion in question is here: [24]. The proposal is to use "Kidnappings of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight" as the title, under the rationale that reliable sources are calling them kidnappings, and that the suspect has now been charged with kidnappings. So it's immaterial whether or not the suspect is guilty, since the crime being committed is described as a "kidnapping", and the official stance is thus that the victims were kidnapped; that doesn't change even if the suspect is found innocent. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 23:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The really problematic BLP issue is the inclusion of the victims' names in the title. See WP:AVOIDVICTIM There's a very good reason by rape and child abuse victims are typically anonymous: people need to go on with their lives without the whole world knowing that information. There is no need for the title of this article to further the victimization these poor women have suffered. Slp1 (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Slp1, these women are not anonymous. Far from it. Two of them have been in the news regularly over the past decade. We cannot censor names in highly notable crime articles like this. Did you express the same thoughts about Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart kidnapping? Smart was in captivity for nine months; these females were gone for a decade. Yes, they were both horrific crimes, but their signicant notability, which is not temporary, necessitates putting their names in the title. That's why the title of Smart's article isn't Utah girl kidnapping. This was discussed in great length when the Smart and Dugard articles were being developed. Therefore, this is not, as you say, a "really problematic BLP issue". Contrary to your request at the article's talk page to "put yourselves in the shoes of these victims a few years from now", we must actually be careful as editors of an encylopedia not to do that. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see the answer I gave you on the talkpage before repeating the same post here. The major difference is that both Dugard and Smart have written books about their experience. They have drawn attention to their situation. To date these women have not at all. Slp1 (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, editors here may not see anything said somehwere else. And I'll repeat whatever I'd like as I see fit. And let's not forget that you are repeating your same arguments in multiple places. I already addressed your book argument which, frankly, is completely illogical. Uh, they didn't write books until long after their Wikipedia articles were created. So what you describe as "a major difference" makes no sense. Look, our job as editors is not to figure out how our content will make a human subject feel. It's to write an encylopedia based on notability and reliable sources. So whether someone wrote a book or not is completely irrelevant to what we do here as editors. The articles are Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart kidnapping for a reason. There was full and lengthy discussion about those titles. That's why they're not Kidnapping of Calfornia girl and Utah girl kidnapping. Look, you've made your views clear. Now we'll see how the move proposal goes. ;) 76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"our job as editors is not to figure out how our content will make a human subject feel". I think you'll find that the WMF has a different opinion on this matter: [25]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read it again. Nothing in it contradicts what I said. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I also do not see how wmf:Resolution:Biographies of living people applies here. We did not strip these victims of dignity (point 2 in the WMF link); the alleged suspect did. Now we need to act as an encyclopedia. Does it suck for them that they're the targets of a widely viewed Wikipedia article? Yes, I assume it does. Do I care? Yes, I actually am fairly uncomfortable working on such an article. (I mainly do so to make sure the article isn't too horrid; personally, I'd rather wait until it's sourced better, but I know creation of the article won't wait for that.) Is it relevant to the purposes of Wikipedia that these individuals went through such an experience, such that we'd exclude widely disseminated personal information? No, and I think that's the important point there. BLP doesn't cover what basically all sources are reporting. If we could have a generic title that worked, I'd be quite happy with that, but no such workable title has been proposed. Nor do I see a BLP violation given the huge coverage currently and over the past decade of these individuals. The fact is, within the article itself, we're going to name the victims. Lacking any other way to write the title...we're going to end up basing it on the victims' names. It's not optimal, but I really don't think it's a BLP violation. It's not great, but it's what it is. In my opinion, either we exclude the victims' names altogether (which makes no sense given the decade-long coverage), or we treat them as valid for the article title. And not calling these "kidnappings" when that's the current legal justification is even more ludicrous, really. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 05:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course, we need to be concerned about BLP issues regarding the victims. Exceptionally concerned, and we must be scrupulous to avoid joining the voracious media pack in sensationalizing their plight. But BLP applies to the suspects as well. Fresh reports indicate this might have been a one-man crime, and if we helped pillory innocent family members, shame on us. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, no one said we shouldn't be concerned about BLP issues. Haha. We of course should always be concerned about BLP issues. And those have been addressed very nicely by some great editors who have removed any unworthy crap from the article. And that will continue to happen. And including the names of the victims in the title is in no way a BLP violation and, in fact, has clear precedence e.g. Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard and Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. Those kidnapping cases are in the exact same realm as this case and therefore should have the same title formatting. I do agree, however, that there were some horrific violations with regard to the original suspects in terms of not adhering to BLP policy regarding those arrested but not even charged with a crime yet. You're absolutely right: "shame on us" for those violations. I voiced my concerns from the beginning about that, but unfortunately to no avail (until police announced the two brothers had nothing to do with the crime). 76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Murders of Christine and Amber Lundy (again)

Nigel Lattais a psychologist in New Zealand with a television program called Beyond the Darklands in which he discusses high-profile criminal offenders. On the page Murders of Christine and Amber Lundy, editor VNTrav has repeatedly posted a dubious comment made by Nigel Latta on his program about Mark Lundy - who has been convicted of killing his wife and child, Christine and Amber Lundy. Lundy claims he is innocent and is taking his appeal to the Privy Council in Britain.

Unfortunately, Mr Latta does not interview or conduct clinical assessments of the offenders he talks about because they are still in prison and not allowed to speak to anyone in the media. Latta gets his information from family and people who knew the offender and extrapolates that into a diagnosis - which is unethical and irresponsible - but makes great TV. In the 30 min documentary which he did on Mark Lundy, he describes Mr Lundy as requiring support to stand up at the funeral (of his wife and child). He referred to this as "limb specific grief".

There is no such disorder or diagnosis known as limb specific grief recognised by the medical profession. Latta made it up and Wikipedia is not in the business of validating pseudo psychological disorders on behalf of populist TV presenters. The "diagnosis" suggests bias and, in my opinion, contravenes WP:BLP which states "Unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing".

I have removed the comment a number of times but VNTrav keeps reposting it. Who agrees that this non-existent medical condition labelled "limb specific grief" being applied to a living person is a breach of WP:BLP? Offender9000 (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not up to you or me to decide whether someone is capable of diagnosing something or not. What matters here is that inserting the opinion of a person into a BLP context is original research. If there are secondary sources that cover Latta's comments or diagnosis or the way he scratched his head while he talked about the issue, then that can be included. Otherwise not. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify please... You seem to be saying that Latta's diagnosis is an opinion - is therefore original research and should not be included. Is that what you meant? Offender9000 (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Look at it this way: You find a video or article by John saying XYZ about Jane, and you include it in a BLP context (in this case, an article that talks about about Jane). That's original research and POV, because you as Wikipedia editor, supposedly neutral, are making a value judgement as to the weight of Johns's opinion re: Jane. On the other hand, if you find an article by Mary@ReliableSource that confers that weight and validity by virtue of coverage, then it's fine - assuming the material does not violate WP:UNDUE to begin with. So in that sense, inclusion is a non-starter. Does that make sense? And in this case, it sounds like it's just made up since it's not even a real medical term, so no dice either. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Quote from Mary@ReliableSource (or, in this case, Elizabeth@thecountry'sbiggestnewspaper) here: [26]. If any living person's BLP is being violated, it is Nigel Latta's, and it is Offender who is doing the violating with his slurs against Latta's character e.g. [27] ("unethical and irresponsible"); [28] ("trying to make a buck out of other people's misery"); [29] ("Latta made it up"); [30] (in its entirety is nothing but an unsubstantiated slur against Latta); etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"Thecountry'sbiggestnewspaper" (as you put it) is only quoting Latta. There is no independent or secondary source showing that "limb specific grief" exists. Therefore Latta made it up. WP:BLP states "Unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing". Offender9000 (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, I don't see how including this would be WP:UNDUE, however, I will note that "limb-specific grief" comes up in Google only on this article and mentions of Latta's comments, so realistically it's fair to say he made that up somehow, and giving it too much weight would be silly at best. I could even be considered "gossip" to a certain extent. But that's not the extent of his comments. You could word it like this for example: Nigel Latta, a clinical psychologist with experience in assessment of prisoner behaviour in court cases, indicated in an [interview?] that he was certain Lundy's public displays of grief were an act. Sourced to the NZ herald, that would be neutral and it would leave out the dubious neologism. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. The phrase is clearly attributed to the guy who used it, and there's no indication whether "what Latta described" is an actual recognized condition, nor whether his assessment of Lundy is accurate. It would be nice to know who this guy is, though, with a short descriptor or Wikilink. And maybe change "described as" to "coined". InedibleHulk (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

But yeah, Frog's idea is good. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ariel Fernandez

I have noticed the repeated posting of a section named "Concerns about Results" in the biographical article on Ariel Fernandez. This section refers to an expression of concern published by a journal called BMC Genomics on two conflicting views on a paper published by Dr. Fernandez. This is clearly a very minor point not worthy of publication in the Wikipedia article unless the intention is to discredit Dr. Fernandez. Scientific papers get challenged all the time and in this case, the challenge did not result in the paper being retracted or even corrected, so the challenge proved to be inconsequential. Please remove. Haydee Belinky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydee Belinky (talk • contribs) 06:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems that a person is discrediting Ariel Fernandez by repeatedly posting the section "Concerns about Results" in the Wikipedia article Ariel Fernandez. This section describes a trivial matter not worthy of attention. Papers get challenged all the time and in this case the challenge did not lead to any consequences. Please remove. Haydee Belinky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydee Belinky (talk • contribs) 06:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed the whole section again. Unless it is reported widely by reliable sources it shouldn't be included as it is undue and not notable. I will claim BLP 3RR exemption the next time it is added an I need to remove it. Others may wish to add it to their watchlists as well. If anyone wishes to keep it in the article they should find more sources and seek consensus on the talk page. I am still wondering if we should put the article in AfD as not notable.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. A couple of things about this. First of all, the suddenly arrived "Haydee Belinky" is almost certainly Ariel Fernandez, the subject of the article (certain details of Talk:Ariel Fernandez, coupled with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arifer/Archive, should convince you of this). Second, contrary to "Haydee's" claims, and contrary to what a non-scientist might think, this is not a trivial or commonplace thing. Expressions of concern are extremely rare in the scientific literature. It is always a big deal for the editors of a journal to express such concerns publicly. It is a bigger deal for them to declare data anomalous, for an author's institutions to investigate, and for one of them, even if one of two, to say that their employee's results could not have been obtained the way he says they were. Any scientist who reads this would have serious doubts about the reliability and veracity of Fernandez' work.

I won't get into a long argument about this. I put in some information, it was removed because of the quote, and I put it back without the quote. So, I'm done with this. But you are permitting Fernandez to manipulate his own article to suppress damning information, and you should reconsider. AlphaHelical (talk) 12:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Both of you are COI then and should discuss any changes on the talk page. After you reach consensus then have another editor add them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ernie Winchester

Ernie Winchester article;
Psychedelicrabbit edited Winchester's death in the article: [31] [32] [33]; however, without a reliable source;
Psychedelicrabbit claims to be Winchester's child: [34];
I'm unsure how to go about this - there are a few pieces to the puzzle missing, such as the fact that there is no hits at Google News; and Psychedelicrabbit has cited a different date of death for two of the edits (8th or 10th). Any ideas? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
It's sorted. Now that Aberdeen FC have reported my father's death (at my instigation), you have your source. There is an odd circularity in how sources become 'verifiable' here that needs reconsideration generally, I would say. - Donald Winchester Psychedelicrabbit (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)psychedelicrabbit
Wikipedia sees itself as an encyclopedia, not a breaking news source. Ordinarily we'd wait until obituaries or mainstream news stories were published announcing his death, and work from those. Sorry for your loss, and for the misunderstanding here. Rklear (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sam shepard

The Profile of Sam Shepard does not refer to the fact that he was in the movie Resurrection (1980) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.141.114 (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not a BLP issue. Please feel free to add the information yourself (as long as it is verifiable) or you can raise your concerns on the article talk page.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I LOVE Sam Shepard. Oh, by the way, the filmography section of his biography already mentions that he appeared in Resurrection in 1980. And, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit. Even you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Eddie Murphy

I'd be grateful for additional opinions concerning questionable content in this article which was reinserted today and apparently has been a source of contention for a while. (I'm new to watching the article.) The relevant talk page section is here. There are sourcing issues, but I see a larger WP:UNDUE problem with the whole thing. Rivertorch (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

well I think we have to be careful of transphobia and Western-centric viewpoint when the woman concerned is probably Fa'afafine. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's see: He was stopped by the police, but neither arrested nor convicted. Is there anyone here with half a brain or more who has read WP:BLP, and thinks this crap belongs in a biography of a living person? I hope not. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Vanilla DeVille

It was recommended by other contributors to bring this issue the BLP board (It has already been discussed without resolution on COIN, ANI and WikiProject_Pornography). [35] [36] [37] This article was proposed for deletion twice, subsequently deleted, recently reverted to the original author's (User Erpert) user page for revision at his request and is now being reviewed for reinstatement. [38] The original article, as well as its current revision, have several inaccuracies and poor paraphrasing that changes meaning. Most of the information is based on a 9 year old interview from a user-generated message board, and contains very little recent data. A couple of examples of the inaccuracies are "She entered the adult film industry in 1998-1999 after discovering how much money one of her girlfriends made by running a webcam site; DeVille then created her own webcam site and subsequently used the profits to create a porn site." and "DeVille has had sex with both men and women but she mainly has sex with women on her website." which are both incorrect statements.

I have a COI with this article, as I am the subjects husband and co-owner of her production company. I provided additional facts and verifiable sources in previous edits, and while some were too promotional and rightfully removed, even edits allowed by COI (such as grammatical changes, corrections of inaccuracies for BLPs and the addition of more reliable sources) were deleted as well. To meet COI rules, I have identified myself, had my identity confirmed, refrained from any further edits, requested feedback from other editors and offered any COI-compliant assistance I can provide. Other editors have also expressed concern over this article (with both the original authors content as well as some of my promotional content), hence its original deletion. It has turned into an ugly battle, with User Erpert refusing to make any corrections or add any additional data or suggested sources. As others have suggested, I'm hoping that third parties from BLPN will review the the document revisions as a whole [39], in order to finally end this situation (hopefully, with either a better written article or final deletion of the inaccurate version). I, as well as Vanilla, are willing to provide any additional information and assistance that is allowable under COI. Thanks. Stewiedv (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Patrick Harris

Patrick Harris's parents did not run a restaurant in Ruidoso, in fact his father was my attorney and I in fact was Particks' soccer coach. I did have a restaurant in Ruidoso "Gregson's" after my name. Congratulations Patrick on all your success, Bob Gregson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.222.70.133 (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you please confirm which article you are speaking of? Neither Patrick Harris nor any of the links at Patrick Harris (disambiguation) seem to apply. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I suspect they're talking about Neil Patrick Harris, there is a claim about Harris' parents there, sourced in part to: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2009-09-13-neil-patrick-harris_N.htm --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Vilayat Inayat Khan

Vilayat Inayat Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Drdonw (talk · contribs)

Okay, the subject isn't living, but the list of living notable students is unsourced, so I trimmed it to include only those who are subjects of their own articles here. A COI account persists in restoring them, with particular interest in adding himself and his publications. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

colin firth

He was not born in 1899, and he's definetely not 113. He was born 1960. Andrew Masters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.118.125 (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Carmen Ortiz

Some of the reasons, as given by other users:

Ocaasi (sysop), at Aaron Swartz, concern about BLPSOURCES:

15:55, 7 February 2013 Ocaasi . . (→JSTOR: rephrase, a bit more neutrally …)

16:12, 7 February 2013‎ MarkBernstein . . (Undid revision 537068878 by Ocaasi. The non-neutrality is not ours; it’s a direct paraphrase of the source…)

Bbb23 (sysop) at BLPN:Stephen Heymann, concern about BLPSOURCES:

More input would be appreciated with respect to recent changes [by MarkBernstein] to the article.… --Bbb23, 18:56, 17 March 2013

Harvey Silvergate’s essay for Mass Lawyers Weekly is not inappropriate for a biography of a living person.… --MarkBernstein 23:33, 17 March 2013

I don’t care if it was written by a supreme court justice. It’s an opinion piece that attacks Heymann.… --Bbb23 00:27, 18 March 2013

FreeRangeFrog (rollbacker) at Talk:Stephen Heymann, concern about GRAPEVINE:

The Harvey Silvergate report in Mass Lawyers Weekly is entirely appropriate for a biography of a living person.… --MarkBernstein 23:40, 17 March 2013

OK, I’ll give you my humble opinion. Including the essay directly is original research. Basically it means “I think this guy is right”…. --FreeRangeFrog 18:03, 22 March 2013

Collect (~~sysop~~) at RSN:Carmen Ortiz (and Aaron Swartz), op-ed using anonymous sources, concern about BLPSOURCES:

… I note the example quote [from Attorney Silverglate’s op-ed] given above is “first-year law” – and thus of little value, esp. as to what someone “would have done”, this being speculation in any event, which must be sourced to the specific person asserting such knowledge. --Collect 13:56, 30 April 2013

Collect at AN3 (Result: Stale, editors discussing), concern about NOPR:

… My employer’s house magazine, TEKKA, did publish some work by Swartz seven or eight years ago. I’d completely forgotten those discussions about getting teenage Swartz to write a book.… --MarkBernstein 07:49, 3 May 2013

The TEKKA website presents you as more than just an “employee”. I think that your words on it suggest a stronger connection that you seem to imply here to the Swartz article. My concern is with the Ortiz article … where there is a subsection on Swartz that … should only summarize the Swartz article and not be a mirror if it, and which is subject to BLP. --Collect 08:04, 3 May 2013

Note. In this article about U.S. Attorney for Mass. Carmen Ortiz, quotations from Attorney Silverglate and his unnamed sources add up to 117 words; quotations from Ortiz and her USAMA posse add up to 86.
Users’ typographical errors and grammatical slips have been silently corrected. --Dervorguilla (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: I am not an admin on Wikipedia - though I have been in charge of large numbers of "sysops" for CompuServe etc. in the past. Just wanted to be clear here. Collect (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

[For “sysop”, SUBS “esteemed wearer of the Admin’s Barnstar”.] --Dervorguilla (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Dervorguilla - What is the issue here? I'm afraid I don't understand. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

After a quick look it could be UNDUE, COATRACK, and copyvio. Too many biased quotes in the section from non-notable people, a 'see main' link in the section to Swartz's bio and not an article on the prosecution. It is wikilinked as well in the same section. Articles like this shouldn't be edited by Wikipedians and Amercians with a POV on the issue.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

§FreeRangeFrog , Canoe1967: Issues are currently being discussed at Talk:Aaron Swartz:Restoring Silverglate and at Talk:Aaron Swartz:WP′s treatment of false statements. (I ought to post a summary here, though.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC) 02:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Far too much COI in that article as well. Football fans from the UK and WWE fans from Australia should be invited to clean up both articles. Americans should not be editing them as well as anyone that knew of Swartz as a Wikipedian and activist before he died.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Canoe1967 (in part). See diff (“You couldn’t swing a dead cat around here without hitting someone who has some sort of `six degrees of separation’ connection to Swartz. Best to focus on behavior, not identity.” --HectorMoffet), and diff (“I myself have no kind of connection to Swartz…” --User:Dervorguilla). --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC) 02:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Two more issues:

Concern about NOTADVOCATE, mentioned by RightCowLeftCoast.
Concern about QUOTE:General guidelines. The quoted statement may be false. --Dervorguilla (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)