Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive189

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

Andrew Gilligan

The Adam Bienkov blog is not an acceptable source. Per WP:BLP, "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." So, your edit is correct insofar as it removes that blog. Bienkov is a journalist, but the blog is not hosted or edited by a news organization.... it seems to be just his own.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that the Bienkov blog as the primary source would not be acceptable on its own. The more pertinent question, raised in the talk page, is whether blogs hosted by news organisations can be used as secondary sources; in this case, the Guardian, the New Statesman, and the Independent. Further views on this matter would be welcome, as the discussion on the talk page has not drawn in any fresh perspectives. UsamahWard (talk) 08:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this the edit in question? (How pleasant it would be if the edit in question could be provided so that others don't have to go searching for it.) Regardless of the quality of sources: it's a ridiculous edit. It could only work if more detail were provided -- but greater detail would require using dodgy sources. So leave it out. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

That is indeed the paragraph in question. The main discussion so far has been here on the talk page. UsamahWard (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, when I asked John about this page, I wasn't talking about that point - I was talking about another;

in a case of child abuse which he had wrongly linked to a mosque. The Telegraph deleted Gilligan's article and issued a correction, though he later denied any story he had written had been corrected.

1. UK Muslim extremist leader jailed for molesting little girls while they recited religious texts Andrew Gilligan (original source deleted)

2. East London Mosque The Telegraph

3. Daily Telegraph Publishes Corrections East London Mosque

4. East London Mosque just can't stop digging Andrew Gilligan

The above is firstly referenced to a news item which was later retracted, and then "supported" by a blog source; you can note that the last reference states "I'm a senior reporter for the Daily and Sunday Telegraph. This is my personal blog" - and thus not an appropriate reference at all.

I think it should be removed, but last time I tried removing poorly-sourced 'facts' from that article, I got myself blocked. I'm not at all interested in Wikipedia machinations, but I am hoping others can perhaps do something about the ongoing problems with this article. 88.104.29.216 (talk) 08:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The references you have given are not from the current version, but from a historical version - why? Current sources are from the Leveson Enquiry (there previously, but you don't mention it) and two from the Telegraph itself, only one of which is from Gilligan's blog. As for using Gilligan's personal blog, WP:BLPSPS clearly states "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject" (my emphasis). The original article is in the Internet Archive, which is a better source than the blog that was previously used. The Telegraph removed the article then published a correction (which is sourced). UsamahWard (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I have been involved in some of the talk page discussion on this question. It appears to me that there is a strongly-sourced fact that an article was written and later retracted. Trying to source the content of that retracted article has led to the use of various blogs, some of which eg Gilligan's official DT blog (source 4) are fairly strong, and others are less so. Martinlc (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Well if you're accepting that weak sourcing, you must also accept that he said, "It is untrue to claim, as the mosque and its echoes in the blogosphere often do, including in its latest statement, that the Daily Telegraph has corrected any story I wrote about it: the correction was to a news-in-brief item (six months ago!) written by someone else." - ref'd to the same [1].

The current article spins that into "he later denied any story he had written".

This is a pathetic blog-argument, not based on any reliable sources, and does not belong on Wikipedia. 88.104.29.216 (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The IP editor above has decided not to wait for the outcome of this discussion initiated by John, and has now removed not only this, but several other parts which may be considered negative, regardless of the sourcing, or the ongoing discussions, or the comments of others such as Martinlc above. I have not reverted his edits, as this might look like an edit war. But in my view these edits have removed properly sourced, notable content. UsamahWard (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes? 88.104.20.198 (talk) 04:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

If the purpose of inclusion of the deleted article is to demonstrate the untruth of the quote, then that is poor justification. This isn't really an argument about sources it 's about the interaction of UNDUE, NPOV and BLP. Martinlc (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree this shouldn't be about sources. Unfortunately, the IP editor who removed it did so precisely on that basis, citing "blogs" in his edit; then he tried to justify this not on the basis of the sources as they stood, but based on the sources of an earlier version before you, Martinlc, had tidied them up. Also, he omitted entirely the source of the Leveson Enquiry itself. He has subsequently removed other material he felt was negative, including most of the introduction; he has not used the talk page to discuss these removals. Normally on Wikipedia, we discuss and hopefully we reach an understanding, just as you and I discussed the Keith Vaz edit and, indeed, the sources for this particular edit; in both cases, I eventually accepted your arguments and moved on. In the case of this IP editor, he has removed a lot, accepted no compromise, pre-empted the lastest discussion here on the latter edit, and in my view made weak and inconsistent arguments to support his edits. The entry for Andrew Gilligan has suffered because of this. UsamahWard (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The IP editor has returned and is deleting content despite strong sourcing. Most recently, the IP editor removed part of the already brief introduction, despite a strong source quoting Gilligan himself as having this view. The second removal regards the matter above, which is strongly sourced, and does not use the sources wrongly implied by the IP editor. He has removed both parts twice today, with no explanation, nor any attempt at discussion. I obviously don't want to get into 3RR territory, so could someone look at this and suggest a way forward? UsamahWard (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The above is, of course, complete bollocks.

I have not 'returned', I merely noticed when - a week after the previous discussions - the user above had reinserted the text, with no agreement. I removed it again, in accord with BLP policy. [2] [3]

"with no explanation"? What about all the discussions directly above, and on the talk page? There has been no consensus shown for inclusion of either of these poor claims.

The user above keeps reinserting this extremely weakly-sourced negative information into the BLP, despite the discussions.

See also Talk:Andrew_Gilligan#Introduction_and_Leveson. 88.104.20.161 (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

It is verifiably untrue that either of these edits were discussed on the article's talk page. The IP editor has provided no reason why the introduction's source should be regarded as "extremely weakly-sourced". Neither has he offered any reason why the Leveson Inquiry or the Telegraph should be regarded as extremely weak sources. He has also violated WP:3RR. UsamahWard (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Is on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Andrew_Gilligan. 88.104.4.74 (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Augie Wolf content

I often include negative content in BLPs that I think is something the reader would want to know. There has been resistance to the inclusion of Los Angeles Times-sourced content about Augie Wolf's alleged performance enhancing drugs. PEDs are common content on wikipedia, even when denied. See Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, and others. Could you BLP experts have a look at this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You're referring to this change. The material you cited seems to satisfy WP:RS and WP:V, but you also have to make sure it's presented in a way that's proportional and neutral. Half of the section dealing with Wolf's career is about doping controversies, even though there's no conclusive proof that he violated the rules there. If it were my biography, I certainly wouldn't feel this is fair. On the testosterone test, it seems that one lab showed he had elevated testosterone, but the relevant sports authorities determined that the results were inconclusive, partly because no one (at that time, at least) knew how to measure "normal" testosterone. There was no action taken against him. Inclusion of this material, especially in an article that already gives a lot of weight to doping issues, might violate WP:NPOV's requirement that "an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." TheBlueCanoe 14:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The undue concern has some merit to it, mainly because the paragraph before TonyTheTIger's addition was already quite long in describing one suspension. I proposed a re-written 'graph on the talk page that covers both suspensions more concisely. Maybe this will be useful. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This guy had a great career and I seem to be unable to document much of it with WP:RS. As a result the PED issues seem overweighted. I don't know how to rectify that, but am supportive of the more concise description outlined by Eggishorn at Talk:Augie_Wolf#Content_removal_discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Made the edit as discussed on article talk page. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Murder of Ayakannu Marithamuthu

This article will appear at DYK soon. Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2. Charges were brought against named suspects but apparently were dismissed. The tone may suggest their guilt ("The suspects have yet to be convicted as of October 2013"). Can someone give this a look? Thank you. Kablammo (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

What a mess. I've removed the most blatant WP:BLP violations, but without access to all the sources, I can't guarantee that the article is free of problems - and there is no way in hell we should be using this for a DYK before it has been properly checked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at this further, the DYK hook is in itself a WP:BLP violation - it is asserting as fact something which has never been determined by a court. Marithamuthu's body was never found, and the claim that he was cooked in a curry is entirely unsubstantiated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I've now raised this at WP:ANI, asking as a matter of urgency that the DYK be removed from the upcoming list. [4] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Brought this up at the DYK talkpage - feel free to weigh in there. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks to Andy and others for their prompt and effective actions. This particular matter appears to be concluded but cleanup on the editor's other articles continues. Kablammo (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Question on BLPPRIMARY

Operation Chengiz Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the article Operation Chengiz Khan the memoirs of P C Lal are used to cite a quote on a living person, are this guys memoirs a primary source? And can we use this to quote what another person may have said? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know that there would be any doubt a memoir is a primary source, and therefore preferably used with moderation. However in this case I don't think it applies specifically as a BLP issue, but instead WP:PRIMARY in general would take over, which makes it more of a content dispute. BLPPRIMARY exists to make sure editors don't engage in original research and synthesis, and to make sure Wikipedia content remains as neutral as possible because we recognize that people have a hard time being neutral when they write about themselves. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

BLPPRIMARY says "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Is a quote being attributed to someone other the the author of the memoirs not fall under this? Specifically the "assertions about a living person" part? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I just don't see where the BLP issue is. The material is being used to support assertions about the effectiveness of runway cratering sorties by the Pakistani Air Force. Unless I'm missing something? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think BLPPRIMARY applies here - but BLP and PRIMARY do, if that makes sense. Giant Snowman 18:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog: & @GiantSnowman:, FRF, I was under the impression that primary sources ought not be used to support the words of a person who had no part in writing the primary source? And what about the blog? Does that fall under SPS & BLP? GS, you have lost me

Darkness Shines (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

K. D. Singh (politician)

This is in follow up of a request at the Help Desk.[5] In short, the K. D. Singh (politician) article is not a biography. The alleged Cash-for-votes scam subsection and the Controversies subsection should be removed/trimmed because the Cash-for-votes scam subsection is an allegation where his level of alleged involvement is not clear and not well sourced such as through multiple major newspapers and the Controversies subsection predominates over his life events in article. Once there is enough text on his life events, some of the Controversies can be added back in within the text of his other life events. There is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/K. D. Singh dated September 25th, 20 days after the above article was created. This article has been moved numerous times.[6] I think it needs someone to hack through the events to see how we got to where we are today and revise the article to meet BLP and NPOV. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any big problem with the references, they are all from mainstream media. --Soman (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the quality of the references listed is the only issue that Jreferee is raising. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Shavarsh Karapetyan

I believe that there is an error in the Biography portion. It references that Mr. Karapetyan carried the torch for the second leg of the race of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Russie. Since the 2014 Winter Olympics have not yet occurred, I do not believe he could have carried the tourch.

Thank you.

Melissa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.81.154 (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The article is not talking about the 2014 Winter Olympics, just the 2014 Winter Olympics torch relay, which began in October. Nothing to do here. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Article Juan Falconi Puig

We claim for the defamatory content of this article and Wikipedia has a legal and moral responsibility to published defamatory comments from people hidden for those who work, possibly to the Isaias brothers.

We edited the texts based on a serious, supported with articles and news published in Ecuador serious media. This is by referring to the source. The comments made by YourACoughDrop obviously are slanderous and defamatory.

In this article it is clear that the intention is to discredit to a personage of Ecuadorian politics, pursued by corrupt bankers of Ecuador for all the investigation he did when he was Superintendent of Banks.

Why the user YourACoughDrop not investigate who are the Isaias brothers, what the have done in Ecuador and what they did with Filanbanco.

--Frutodetusafanes (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Frutodetusafanes

Ratan Khatri

Ratan Khatri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi can someone look at Ratan Katri? It has too many revisions for me to be comfortable deleting it G10, but the references are mostly 404s. I'm on a mobile device so I have too small a screen to fix this this week. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd nuke it right now. It's a huge unsourced hatchet job on the subject, regardless if it's "true" or not. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 15:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

It looked like a "wholly unsourced entirely negative" BLP to me, so I tagged it for CSD:G10. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Nuked. A good start to my Sunday morning :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin

'War Criminal' is a loaded term
the court which found him guilty has been criticised by human rights groups and does not reach the standard of international courts
the trials are politicised and emotionally charged, with only the losing side on trial
After one of the accused was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment, the 2013 Shahbag protests resulted in the rules of the court being re-written to allow an appeal by the prosecution, and also to allow the death penalty.
Those involved in writing the article are too close to the issue to be neutral.
Mueen-Uddin is also a well-known figure in the UK, setting up the charity Muslim Aid and working for the NHS at a high level. These are much more recent, and positive events, but they are not given nearly as much weight.

I would appreciate a third person (or five or six...) reviewing the article. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 19:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

2013 Shahbag protests created pressure on the parliamentarians to change a law so that the prosecution can appeal. Earlier only the defense was able to appeal against a verdict. Neither the parliament nor the protests have any relation with the outcome of a court, as the judiciary is a separate institution in that country.--Kaisernahid (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I've looked at this a little bit. There are two guys who have been convicted recently by this Bangladeshi court in absentia for the 1971 killings. One guy is Mueen, who is a citizen of the UK located in the UK. The other guy is Ashrafuz Zaman Khan who is in the US. So, there are similar issues with the Khan article. The Khan case actually seems a bit more interesting at first glance; whereas the UK has a policy against extraditing to countries that might use the death penalty, I don't think the US has such a policy. Anyway, better put both articles on the BLPN radar.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

WOW! User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry didn't notice that, Here is a discussion going on! I have placed my points on article's talk page.--FreemesM ^(talk) 11:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree with User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry. Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin was recognized as war criminal, long before the creation of International crimes tribunal. See this Twenty Twenty Television's documentary on Mueenuddin's War Crimes involvement, directed by David Bergman (journalist)‎ and aired on 3 May 1995 The War Crimes File: Dispatches, Channel 4, 1995. Not only that, there are lots of evidences to prove him as a war criminal. All the allegations against International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) mostly circulated from Human Rights watch and other media just echo that. HRW is not a angle type organization, there are many criticizes against them. Their report against ICT is highly biased.[7]. Few more organizations are there, who talk against ICT just for heavy lobbying of Jamaat-e-Islami (Mueen-Uddin was a member of this party). So it is logical to treat him as war criminal. See these sources-[8][9][10]

Above para was written by me. I forgot to sign. Sorry.--FreemesM ^(talk) 03:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is a description of the brutality of al-badr from an eyewitness of the event. These reports provide evidence that Mueen is a most wanted war criminal since 1971, long before ICT accused him. - Rahat | Message 13:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Your job (to call it something) as a neutral editor of Wikipedia is to present the facts as they are put forth by reliable sources, not argue that this or that shows X or Y, or that something is biased or etc, etc. The article as it stands right now is not balanced or neutral. If you're going to call someone a "balloon juggler" then you must have a source that calls them exactly that. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with §FreeRangeFrog^croak. Just to clarify things a bit, I think the original source of this article is a court, Rahat presented additional sources in reply to Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's criticism of that court.--Kaisernahid (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

But on Wikipedia, WP:BLP trumps all that, particularly WP:BLPCRIME.--ukexpat (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

He is clearly a 'Convicted War Criminal'. Verify here- [11][12][13][14][15]. Don't you think these sources are reliable? If you want to take the convict's denial, then almost 99% of convicted criminals around the world will claim that there innocent! that doesn't men they are actually innocent. Moreover you must keep in mind convict's payed lobbying effort. [16][17]. this news report may clarify your concept about Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin--FreemesM ^(talk) 04:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

He has certainly been convicted in absentia, but it is by no means clear yet whether Britain and Bangladesh will work out their differences regarding extradition. Without extradition, there can be no punishment. Britain is concerned not only about the death penalty but also about fairness of the trial: "Britain may still agree to send him to Bangladesh but only with assurances he would receive a fair trial and that he would not be executed if found guilty."[18] Under these circumstances, the BLP should take an explanatory tone per WP:BLPCRIME, rather than making blanket statements and applying pejorative labels. Different criminal justice systems may result in seemingly contradictory results.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me clear my points once again. Chowdhury Mueen-Uddin has committed war crime in 1971 in Bangladesh. Then he escaped to UK and got citizenship there. Now Bangladesh government has established a tribunal to punish war criminal's of 1971. As there is sufficient evidence against Mueen Uddin, tribunal declared him as war criminal. Mueen-Uddin knew that the evidence against him is very strong and he could be sentenced to death (I want to inform you that, in Bangladesh the capital punishment is death sentence), that is why he did not appeared to the court. Beside this he and his party Jamaat-e-islami started hiring paid lobbyist to prevent this trial process. Here in this article, I am not concern about whether UK and Bangladesh govts will agree to bring him in Bangladesh. Until now he is a convicted war criminal and none of any court declare that he was not convicted. So I think it is legal to term him as "convicted war criminal" according to all WP policy.--FreemesM ^(talk) 07:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

If the UK extradites this British citizen to face punishment in Bangladesh, then I will strongly support writing "convicted criminal" and "war criminal" all over this Wikipedia article. But until then, we are getting conflicting signals from two different governments, much like we got conflicting signals from the acquittal of O. J. Simpson followed by his loss in a civil suit for wrongful death. When Wikipedia gets conflicting signals like this, we're not supposed to use labels and make blanket statements, but instead we are supposed to use a more explanatory tone. There is no urgency here to write "convicted criminal" in the lead of this BLP, so let's just wait and see what the UK and Bangladesh can negotiate. Maybe he will be extradited for an entirely new trial, in which case he would be presumed innocent even in Bangladesh.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree with you. I don't understand why CM's war criminal conviction depends on UK's decision, where Bangladesh is a sovereign country?--FreemesM ^(talk) 11:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, I appreciate your concern for WP:BLP. As per WP:BLPCRIME we have to first make sure whether current article has "different judicial proceedings result(ing) in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other", so we may need the verdict of a second judicial proceeding. In addition to that, can you provide the reference of "getting conflicting signals from two different governments" from the spokespersons of the two governments?--Kaisernahid (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It's well known that the UK has thus far refused to extradite.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I added "as UK has abolished death penalty" after "although the United Kingdom has thus far declined to extradite him" based on Daily Star as it says: When asked, Warren Daley, spokesperson of the British high commission in Dhaka, said: “The UK has made clear its support for Bangladesh’s efforts to bring to justice those accused of atrocities committed in 1971. Along with our EU partners, we are however opposed to the application of the death penalty in all circumstances. We will consider any extradition request received from Bangladesh within the terms of the Extradition Act of 2003. But in line with this Act, the government will not order a person’s extradition to Bangladesh if he could be, will be or has been sentenced to death for the offence.” But Anythingyouwant has revert back the changes. I would appreciate very much if a third person reviews this. Thanks--Kaisernahid (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is how the lead should summarize stuff that no one seems to be objecting to in the body of the article, regarding extradition. See talk page discussion here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I was out of town, just came home. A lot of change has done without any consensus. I will join from tomorrow.--FreemesM ^(talk) 10:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand, why Anythingyouwant trying to remove CM's war crime involvement info from info box. That is not a good sign of wp:goodfaith. He is also trying to push 'extradiction from UK' issue, which is surely WP:UNDUE. Please do not push WP:POV.--FreemesM ^(talk) 05:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to explain again about the infobox. The template "Infobox person" has a variety of parameters, and three of them are explicitly for information about criminality. It is redundant to also include such information under other parameters like "known for". There is no reason to put "1971 killings" under the parameter "known for" when it is already in the Infobox using a criminality parameter. If you look at the Ted Bundy or Charles Manson articles, we don't use the "known for" parameter to repeat information that's already in the Infobox under another parameter.

Additionally, this article about Mueen falls under WP:BLPCRIME, and it's very similar to the example discussed in BLPCRIME regarding OJ Simpson, who was acquitted of murder but still held liable for wrongful death in a civil case. Similarly, Mueen was found guilty in absentia of murder by a Bangladeshi court, but Britain has thus far declined to extradite him, due to concerns about getting a fair trial and about the death penalty; Britain has also thus far declined to prosecute. So we need to treat this like the OJ Simpson example in BLPCRIME, by using an explanatory tone rather than sweeping labels.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. It appears that "Chase Me Ladies" (who brought this matter to BLPN) has gone away, and I'm the only one attempting to make this article BLP-compliant. I'm getting kind of tired of it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Anythingyouwant, please don't take it personally. As an experienced wikipedian you may know, an article should follow wp:undue rule. When you are introducing him just a member of few Islamic organization, it doesn't present his true identity. Moreover we should arrange those chronologically.--FreemesM ^(talk) 06:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems both 'Anythingyouwant' and 'Chase Me Ladies' has lost interest on this article. I think it is time to close this thread. Thanks.--FreemesM ^(talk) 06:47, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please close this section. Neither User:Freemesm nor anyone else has addressed the specific problems that I have described above, and everyone has had ample opportunity to do so. The lead of the article currently fails to mention that the UK has thus far declined to extradite and that the UK has thus far declined to prosecute, and the whole BLP fails to follow WP:BLPCRIME given "different judicial proceedings result(ing) in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other".Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Mm, except there aren't different judicial proceedings resulting in cinflciting judgements. There's a concluded Bangladesh legal proceeding, and a UK policy decision regarding extradition in death penalty cases. They don't conflict. In fact they represent a UK acceptance that a Bangladesh court made a finding, but not one the UK intends to honour as a matter of policy. But even if this was a matter of conflicting judgements, the rest of BLPCRIME reads that we should then "refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information." Which in this context means noting the Bangladesh conviction and noting the UK response. Euryalus (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Going back to Cavalry's original points:

'War Criminal' is a loaded term - True. Let's use "convicted of war crimes by a Bangladesh court" and note the conviction was in absentia and that some groups have criticised the court's validity.
the court which found him guilty has been criticised by human rights groups and does not reach the standard of international courts - perhaps so, and worth noting in the article. But this does not alter the sheer fact of the conviction. The conviction of Bradley Manning was criticised by human rights groups. The conviction of Hosni Mubarak had thousands of detractors. These points are relevantly noted in their articles but they don't change the simple reality that the convictions occurred in a court of law, whatever others might think of that court.
the trials are politicised and emotionally charged, with only the losing side on trial - this is a personal opinion, but if you can reliably source it, it might be relevantly noted in the article, in a section outlining dissent from the decsion. Again, its doesn't alter the fact of the conviction by a Bangladesh court, or the name of the charge for which Mueen was convicted.
After one of the accused was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment, the 2013 Shahbag protests resulted in the rules of the court being re-written to allow an appeal by the prosecution, and also to allow the death penalty. - Worth noting. Again, doesn't alter the fact of the conviction prior to these protests.
Those involved in writing the article are too close to the issue to be neutral. - Possibly. Everyone brings their own world view to their edits. But surely the nature of this collaborative process addresses that concern? Like Cavalry I'm not from Bangladesh and have never heard of this person other than on this noticeboard and then from reading the article.
Mueen-Uddin is also a well-known figure in the UK, setting up the charity Muslim Aid and working for the NHS at a high level. These are much more recent, and positive events, but they are not given nearly as much weight. - the best point yet. This is someone with decades of community activism in the UK, which rates barely a mention in the article and should, for reasons of biographical balance, be given substantially more emphasis. WP:BLP is more than just the removal of unsourced libel. Its about making sure articles present the whole picture, in proportion to its rleevance. The need for more on Mueen's life is as important in balancing the article as the ongoing discussions over precisely what we think of the Bangladesh legal system.

If the above is too long and dull, I suppose I'm advancing this argument:

a) there is no argument that Mueen was convicted by a Bangladesh court,

b) some have disputed the validity of the court and/or its judgement,

c) as a matter of policy the UK does not extradite people facing the death penalty,

d) the Bangladesh court verdict is not dependent on UK approval to have validity in Bangladesh,

e) the UK is perhaps keeping open the option of its own or international legal proceedings but this is largely speculative, and

f) there are sufficient sources for all of these points for this article to be written neutrally while incorporating both the fact of the Bangladesh verdict and the fact of dissent from that verdict in other parts of the world.

Other views welcome. Euryalus (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The lead fails to indicate that the UK has thus far declined to extradite, and fails to indicate that the UK has thus far declined to prosecute. Both of those things amount to an intergovernmental conflict about the guy's fate, and from all appearances the criminal justice system in the UK is content to let the guy remain free. That scenario may not have been exactly foreseen by those who wrote the Wikipedia policy, but it sure seems comparable. Do you think we should categorize these guys as war criminals too?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:50, 19 November 2013

Replied on "Common Dreams" at this article's talk page. As I said above, even if we assume the UK decision not to extradite is a "conflicting legal finding", we are merely exhorted not to write in absolutes. The UK failure to extradite is important to note in the article, as is the Bangladesh finding itself. The UK decision neither endorses nor invalidates the Bangaldesh court decision. It simply reflects a UK policy regarding death penalty cases. Let's include it in the article lead as a sentence immediately after the one that says Mueen was convicted. And then again in the article body in the section on the trial and verdict. Euryalus (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

(The link above is to Al Jazeera rather than Common Dreams.) I never claimed that the UK decisions invalidate what Bangladesh decided. If you look at BLPCRIME, they discuss OJ Simpson as an example, and his civil trial verdict did not invalidate his criminal trial verdict, yet the apparent conflict between them is reason enough for us not to categorize OJ either as an innocent man or as a murderer. You say that it might be necessary for us to not write in absolutes, and to me that means Wikipedia ought not label this Mueen guy as a murderer or as an innocent man, right? If that's so, then the BLP is violating policy. Also, if Bangladesh cancels the death sentence, I disagree with your assumption that Britain would send him there to be imprisoned for life based on nothing but a trial in which he could not mount a defense. We have sources in the Wikipedia article that specifically say Britain is concerned not just about the death sentence, but also about a "fair trial". And, Britain could easily prosecute this guy but hasn't (which is also mentioned deep in the BLP). If the guy's guilty, I hope he is appropriately punished, but we have no business at this point stating as fact that he is guilty or that he is a convicted murderer. That said, I agree with you that we should include the nonextradition in the article lead as a sentence immediately after the one that says Mueen was convicted in Bangladesh, without suggesting that Britain would extradite but for the death penalty. And how about the UK's choice to not prosecute?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not labelling him a murderer, I'm labelling him a person convicted of war crimes in a Bangladesh court. On the basis of reliable sources which assert that this occurred. The issue of what Britain would do if he was not facing the death penalty is entirely speculative. But by all means note any relevant and reliably sourced comment by the UK Government, in the body of the article.

In the interests of moving forward, can we agree that the article lead should note the Bangladesh conviction and the UK decision not to extradite, and that both of these points can be furtehr detailed with appropriate references in the main article text? We can remove/avoid pejorative references to "murderer" or "war criminal" and simply note the neutral formulation "convicted of war crimes in a Bangladesh court" as well as noting the objections expressed by human rights groups and others to the constitution o that court and the fairness of its proceedings. That way we present the reader with the facts and with a sourced cross-section of people's views on those facts. Euryalus (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like an appropriate plan, thanks. Having been reverted so many times at the article, I'd prefer not to take a lead role, but will help.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Royce White

I am having trouble determining if I am putting in too much negative content or if more should be included.

Not included

5 baby mamas
an imminent baby kept him from taking a basketball scholarship

Included

Dismissed from high school
Two theft incidents in college
Suspended in college
Anxiety disorder kept him from the NBA

I am trying to determine if I am putting in too much negative content or omitting too much. Advice welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A one sentence mention in the Personal section would be OK. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

For which of the above excluded items?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about the other ones, but "anxiety disorder kept him from the NBA" is no more negative than "arthritis kept him from the NBA". Joefromrandb (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

C.L.V. Jayathilake - Spelling suggestion

Please be kind enough to change the name of the article as C.L.V. Jayatilleke or the most commonly known name "Lakshman Jayatilleke". His name is mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Royal_College_Colombo_alumni#Public_commissions_.26_corporations as well. He is an Old boy from my Alma Mater and the head of my University whom I personally know. Therefore, I assure this information is correct.

Thanks and regards, Navaka (navakawiki)

Thank you for posting, and thank you for your contributions to the article. Unfortunately, these changes, particularly the spelling of the gentleman's name, are not supported by any sources. The sources that are currently linked to the article both agree on the Jayathilake spelling. Your personal knowledge may contradict this, but we have no way of verifying this information. For the time being, therefore, I've restored the version of the article immediately prior to your changes. You are welcome to make these changes again if you can cite them. You may also want to read the policies about biographies of living persons (A/K/A: BLP). Feel free to use the talk page of the article to ask questions about your edits to this article. Thanks again. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for taking time to provide me with a comprehensive response. However, I'm afraid that I have no better evidence than the official websites. Usually, our government websites just serve the purpose - may be lesser - and do not carry personal profiles and most of the time it's Wikipedia comes to help when it comes to personal information and biographies. That's why I updated the information knowing that he is a prominent figure and the information was wrong. If you really need to confirm, I can provide his personal e mail address and even the contact number but again, if we go into 'that' extent, it might also be 'false'. :) I'm editing Facebook places and Google Maps too where I face the same issue. To maintain a comprehensive, large source like this, you should to some extent rely on others, right? Considering the amount of false edits, done, yes, it is indeed a headache. Therefore, I would suggest you to take this as a complain on the credibility of information and contact one of the verified Sri Lankan users - I don't know them personally - and do the needful. Thanks. :)

Woody Harrelson's arm injury in Cheers (season 5)

I found this article from Los Angeles Times about Toyota Pro-Celebrity Grand Prix 1988. When I read it, I found Harrelson's 1987 (not 1988) arm injury that was shown onscreen in Cheers. It claimed that he had two arm injuries: one in fist fight, other in car racing accident. But according to the Philadelphia Inquirer article, the race was scheduled to occur on April 4, 1987. (Every annual Grand Prix has been scheduled for every April.) And his character Woody Boyd explained his "thumb" injury in one episode that aired on February 12, 1987. I assumed that the real-life fist fight incorporated Boyd's "thumb" injury. I know it couldn't have been the July 1986 fistfight. But I'm still searching. In the meantime, how do I include the "arm cast" thing and Boyd's "thumb" injury in Cheers (season 5) (instead of Woody Harrelson) without violating policies (well, guidelines I can either ignore or obey)? --George Ho (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I think, George, that you would need to find a reliable source that discusses both incidents (i.e. the Woody Boyd character appeared with a thumb-injury because actor Woody Harrelson injured his arm doing "x"). Otherwise, it seems to be WP:SYNTH. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Can I at least write, "Harrelson's arm injury was incorporated into Boyd's injury," without explaining the cause of injury? --George Ho (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

It's one of those things that's benign enough that it probably shouldn't raise many concerns, at least as far as WP:BLP goes. The worst that could happen is someone will revert and you can discuss it further. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I added Boyd's injury and Harrelson's. No complications, and no issues? George Ho (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Frank Riggs

I am the subject of this biography which contains a number of inaccuracies. The First Congressional District I was elected to in 1990 and represented from 1991-92 (in the 102nd Congress) ran from Sonoma County up the California northcoast to the Oregon border and inland through Napa and Lake Counties (my district office was located in Santa Rosa, the county seat of Sonoma County). The First District was redistricted in 1992 based on the 1990 Census to include all of Napa County and a portion of Solano County incuding Fairfield and Travis Air Force Base. I won election from that district in 1994 and represented it from 1995-98 (in the 104th and 105th Congresses).

For years, my biography has mentioned a "fraud and conspiracy" civil lawsuit. As noted, I was serving in Congress at the time and was not active in managing the partnership known as Haystack Landing Associates. The lawsuit was brought against the partnership by a disgruntled individual who named me because of my high-profile position. The lawsuit was inflamatory and frivilous and was dismissed without any proceedings in Sonoma County Superior Court. This can be verified by the court records of Sonoma County Superior Court. If the mention is to remain, it should note that the lawsuit was dismissed and that my partners and I continued to own the property without any controversy for several years thereafter.

Lastly, the suggestion that I believed I faced "certain defeat" in a race against State Senator Thompson is absolutely specious. I had just won reelection in the presidential election year of 1996. President Clinton received far more votes than Sen. Bob Dole in the presidential election from voters in the First District, but in the next race on the ballot, I won reelection with a handy majority, attracting the votes of thousands of voters who had voted for Clinton and then "crossed over" to vote for me. My strong showing would have bode well for another relection bid. I pursued the U.S. Senate race because I felt I had helped accomplished the goals that motivated me to run for Congress, namely the first balanced federal budgets and tax cuts in a generation and fundamental welfare reform, leading to strong and sustained economic prosperity. I've inserted my bio below but I would appreciate greater care and conscientiousness with respect to the information you use for my biography on your website.

collapsing article text

Frank Riggs

Frank Riggs retired as the President and founding CEO of the Charter Schools Development Corporation (CSDC) at the end of 2012, after a decade-plus of service to that organization, to start his new company, Duncan Development Co., LLC. "Duncan Devco" provides "one-stop shop" financing and real estate development services to high-performing charter school organizations for their turnkey facility needs.

Riggs joined the CSDC Board in 1999, and from September 2000 to February 2002 served as CSDC's Executive Vice President. He became President and CEO of CSDC and its affiliates in August, 2004, and served in that capacity through 2012. Riggs was instrumental in building CSDC from a start-up nonprofit to the national leader in financing and developing educational facilities for public charter schools, with $125M+ in assets, and a record of providing, procuring and leveraging private capital for facility acquisitions and improvements worth $680M. Riggs' visionary and strategic leadership resulted in CSDC and its subsidiaries and affiliates financing and developing over four million square feet of modern and affordable educational facilities for 235 charter schools in 25 states.

Under Riggs' stewardship, CSDC was the leading financial intermediary and credit enhancement provider to charter school organizations, the largest nonprofit developer of charter school campuses, and the 2011 Wachovia Wells Fargo NEXT Award recipient for "demonstrated excellence in financing" as a direct lender and community development financial institution (the only CDFI in the country focused on the facility and capital financing needs of charter schools serving predominantly low-income student populations). CSDC achieved consistent annual growth and success as measured by the year-over-year increases of the new and renovated facilities financed and developed by CSDC, and of the student enrollment and new classroom seats added to those facilities. Riggs has been a national leader of the fast growing charter school movement that has created 5,600-plus charter schools in the U.S. serving over two million students, with approximately 600,000 families on charter school waiting lists nationwide.

Riggs has substantial private-sector business experience in real estate development and finance, and in education services. Prior to becoming CEO of CSDC, he was the CEO of ABS School Services of Phoenix, AZ (a provider of financial accounting and business management services to approximately 200 school district, charter, private and federal grant school clients with 156 employees) and the Vice President of Government Relations and Business Development for Educate Inc. (Sylvan Education Solutions and Connections Academy). Riggs was also a consultant to Sylvan Ventures prior to joining Educate Inc.

Riggs is a former three-term (six-year) United States Congressman who represented California’s First Congressional District (the North Coast, Wine Country and Northern San Francisco Bay Area) from 1991-93 and again from 1995-1999 in the 102nd, 104th and 105th Congresses. While in Congress, Riggs served on the House Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-Long Learning and on the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, and chaired the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families in the 105th Congress. In the latter capacity, Riggs was the principal House author of the updated and reauthorized federal special education law (IDEA), and the lead author and sponsor of the Charter School Expansion Act of 1998 providing federal start-up grants to newly formed charter school organizations. Riggs' congressional service afforded him the opportunity to serve on the three congressional subcommittees with jurisdiction and oversight responsibility for preK-20 federal education policies, programs and funding.

According to the Heritage Foundation, "Representative Riggs spearheaded many cutting edge initiatives like school choice and charter schools." He was also recognized for his dedication to children with disabilities and by both the National and California Head Start Associations as “Legislator of the Year.” Riggs was the principal architect and proponent of the federal Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities Program, which started as a demonstration program in 2000 with a $25M appropriation, and has grown to almost $250M in appropriations since, leveraging $2.74B in private capital for the acquisition, construction, renovation and leasing of charter school facilities.

Mr. Riggs, an Army veteran, former police officer, and past school board president, holds a Bachelor of Arts in Administration of Justice, summa cum laude, from Golden Gate University in San Francisco and received the University’s 'Associates Award' in 1980 as the outstanding graduate in the College of Business and Public Administration.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.157.70 (talk • contribs) 19:11, November 16, 2013‎

It looks like another user has removed the offending material. It should have been deleted on sight as soon as it was added (years ago). You have every right to expect "greater care and conscientiousness" concerning the material in your biography. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Lin Biviano

Someone out there is determined to edit the Lin Biviano article to read as negatively as possible. There is a Lawrence Welk fanpage (Biviano played trumpet for the Welk band for years) that has a bio on Biviano that is almost entirely made up of allegations of criminal acts, with no sources listed (www.welkshow.com). This website has been credited for most of the recent changes for the Wikipedia article. Also the same person apparently bought www.linbiviano.org in order to post a second copy of the claims. Other changes that have happened to the Wikipedia article: removal of the well-known names from Biviano's bio, removal of the entire discography, addition of rumors of drug and/or alcohol use, addition of a poorly-sourced claim that Biviano has changed professions to either tambourine player or hairdresser, and changing all the links and references to www.welkshow.com. All these changes have been by anonymous users. This is frankly getting tiresome. Mr. Biviano is a real person, and although he probably doesn't have the time or inclination to mess with some silly internet flame war, this is in my mind entering libelous territory. Highnotes4ever (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree re the veracity of the welkshow page. Added some comments on the talk page and will watchlist the page to respond if there are more reversions without discussion. Doesn't seem a particularly fast-paced disagreement, but let's see how it goes. Euryalus (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The linbiviano.org website is viciously defamatory, should be blacklisted, and should never be cited on this encyclopedia. I encourage any editors reading this to add the article to your watch list, to protect it against one or more people determined to defame this musician. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Blacklist requests can be made at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_additions but it's more for websites being spammed across the wiki than for additions to a single page. I've blocked the current anon IP editor for edit-warring by reinserting the link multiple times and against consensus. If it continues the next step would likely be semi-protection. Also watching the page, as you suggest. Euryalus (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The article at Jo Ann Castle also contains assertions that could be defamatory and that are only sourced to the same Web site mentioned above (with a Web redirect from joanncastle.com), which contains even more potentially defamatory information. Jo Ann Castle is at least rumored to be Biviano's long-time girlfriend and more recently his wife. It was edited recently to refer also to Biviano as something other than a trumpet player. This link[19] may or may not be relevant. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Have removed the unsourced allegations in the Jo Ann Castle article as well. The eetimes report is also at PRNewswire and could be worth including subject to a view on undue weight in what is otherwise a very short article. For now I've left it out, but other views welcome. Both articles (Biviano and Castle) have been semi-protected to prevent the re-adding of material sourced to attack pages. Euryalus (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Bhushan_Kumar

The entire article seems to be written by someone working for Super cassettes OR Bhushan Kumar, for eg.g Sentences like Bhushan kumar is a visionary, headstrong seem to be strong words used very loosely

The entire article has reference of fact but without mentioning any — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denzy (talk • contribs) 04:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Made a start in pruning back the puffery but there's more to be done and it's late here, so the rest tomorrow. References need checking also - there's multiple claims being made to individual references that support only one of them. Parts of the article also read like a copyvio, but I can't locate the original source and the rewrite to achieve a neutral tone will address this anyway. Anyone with nothing to do in the next eight hours or so is welcome to pick up where I left off for the evening. Euryalus (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

America Ferrera

She was born in Perris California not Paris as in France — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.1.38.126 (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS says Los Angeles, not Perris and not Paris. Thanks for pointing out the mistake. Elizium23 (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I find no sources saying she was born in Perris or Paris, but several saying she was born in Los Angeles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Phyllis Schlafly

Phyllis Schlafly comes under repeated attack in the last hour in three postings by an IP source 98.196.232.6 There have been two warnings so far by two editors. Rjensen (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Another new IP editor 129.7.134.146 (they are both from Houston addresses) now jumps in to copy the original attack, and adds a false personal attack on me (Undid revision 582217558 by Rjensen (talk)undo edit by schlafly employee) the edits in question are the first and only ones by these IP addresses. Rjensen (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It is surely useful to identify the edit that constitutes an "attack": [20]. I'm not at all sure that this is an attack, and I would be careful with relying on a BLP exemption to 3RR (though of course the IP is obviously edit-warring in an inappropriate way). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm providing sourced information. I'm not sure what game RJensen is playing at since he and his friend Edgar refuse to come to the talk page or discuss any specifics. This 20 questions bullshit trying to figure out what they object to is pointless, I've posted the sources and synopsis and they can either respond or admit they are just game playing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.232.6 (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC) AND NOW it turns out RJensen is having people remove the discussion from the talk page! They are trying to completely block sourced information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.232.6 (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

RJENSEN and THEREDPENOFDOOM have twice removed the discussion, despite the discussion being created at request of administrator Edgar181. They are plainly trying to block discussion entirely and are uninterested in anything but disruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.232.6 (talk)
Note: This article was semi-protected by another admin. MastCell ^Talk 21:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the talk page comment issue: Yes, it seems that the ip is being toyed with "20 questions" style. But if the ip were less bombastic, perhaps they would find others more willing to engage?Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- I will admit, this removal was probably a mistake. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  - WND is generally not considered a reliable source, and I wonder about rightwingwatch. Salon generally is reliable. I'd be shocked if Schlafly didn't have anti-muslim views but a section that's mostly quotes designed to inflame is not what should be on Wikipedia. A section that says she has views characterized as anti-muslim, appropriately sourced, shouldn't be a problem. Ravensfire (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

George Zimmerman (Again!)

Was arrested today, details unknown. Article could probalby use additional eyes in general based on the new attention this article will likely get, but there are open questions about how WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NOTNEWS applies (or not). We know he was arrested. Thats it. No charging, don't even know what he was arrested for. Zimmerman probably passes WP:WELLKNOWN now, b ut should this information be included at this point? Discussion ongoing at Talk:George_Zimmerman#Zimmerman_arrested Gaijin42 (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure to be a train wreck. I guarantee it.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

He's been officially charged with aggravated assault, battery, and criminal mischief, in an apparent domestic incident ([21]). This event will likely be notable, but I think we should be very cautious here - there's no deadline to put this in the article, and we can wait for more sources (and more accurate details) to become available before going forward. MastCell ^Talk 22:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Still going to be a train wreck going forward, but officially being charged changes the calculus on inclusion probably. I have put in a minimal inclusion. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Would Template:current person be appropriate? Dwpaul ^Talk 22:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that most people who want to add information about the domestic incident want to add it because they think shooting Martin makes him an awful person so they want to put in as much stuff as they can that shows he's an awful person. I think this violates the spirit of WP:COATRACK if not necessarily the letter. Ken Arromdee (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Charles Wang

At Charles Wang, an IP keeps adding in the same unnecessary and unreferenced section, citing a "common misconception" with no evidence of it, and it's just adding clutter. I've reverted 3 times in the past week, left warnings, and the edit summaries are getting more aggressive. More eyes, maybe an IP block? I suspect all 4 IPs, or at least 3 of them, are likely the same person. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure this is a BLP issue since the contentious information is not relevant to the article subject. Keeping the information might violate WP:SUMMARY. Doesn't add anything to the article, but doesn't prejudice the article's subject at all. I've reverted the edit. --Rawlangs (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Any suggestions about where to take this, if not BLP, if this persists? Echoedmyron (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You could try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies or Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions if that doesn't work out. The BLPN is typically for issues that violate WP:BLP, but I'd be happy to help if you keep having problems on this page. Shoot me a message on my talk page. --Rawlangs (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Mansoor Ijaz

Need to clean-up and/or reduce uncited information. RCRC (talk) (contrib) 18:48, 18 November 2013‎ UTC

Are you advising us of a potential violation of BLP policy, or just an article that requires cleanup? Dwpaul ^Talk 01:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Scope of WP:BLP? Advice needed

Does this addition [[22]] about Rob Ford to the "joke page" WP:Still more Best of BJAODN by User:Jack Cox violate WP:BLP? Obviously i think, it does (i.e. the policy's first intro paragraph) and reverted the change for now. But additional advice and opinions would be appreciated. GermanJoe (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The entire series of BJAODN articles are juvenile idiocy, but if they are to be kept, then one standard that really needs to be enforced is no entries of articles that are covered by WP:BLP. Vandalism to people's biographies has the potential for harm to the subject, and should not be the butt of a Wikipedians' humor. Tarc (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Urvashi Rautela

Deletions are address through WP:AFD and modifications are address by hitting the [edit] link yourself. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to know why it was deleted, or need advice, you can ask me if you wish Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I have reopened this, re recent events:

On 20/11/13 Jimfbleak deleted the article as a copyvio of http://www.filmyfolks.com/celebrity/bollywood/urvashi-rautela.php - not an exact match but a close enough paraphrasing as explained here.
On 23/11/13 User:Manojnmims recreated the article as an exact copy of the filmyfolks page. I've deleted it a second time.
The subject of the article seems notable enough, so a genuine non-copyvio version would be welcome. If no one else starts one I'll remove the copyvio material from the one Jimfbleak deleted and restore it. Alternatively anyone who has an interest in the topic can let me know and I'll send them a copy of the above also without the copyvio content, as a userspace starting point. Euryalus (talk) 06:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Xiomara Castro

We are specifically talking the children of Xiomara with former Honduras President Manuel Zelaya. The daughter of another famous Honduras political leader was shot at last week so there is a real danger that children of other political leaders could also be targetted. I am not conviced by Irn's arguments about how publishing the names of these 4 children, some of whom may be minors, and with no context (in the infobox) will improve the article but believe BLPPRIVACY and the needs to respect the privacy of these non-notable children demands we dont include the names. So I reverted Irn's inclusion of the names but we have been unable to reach consensus in an extended talk page discussion since. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion if the article should mention her children's names, but including them is not a violation of either BLP or BLPPRIVACY. Assuming this info is sourced (and it appears it is based upon hits from Spanish news sources) this info doesn't violate the basic tenet of BLP. BLPPRIVACY specifically deals with how information may be misused against the BLP subject, for example information used to commit identity theft. That somehow including these children's names on the English Wikipedia article could somehow endanger them is facetious. I note that this information is included in the Spanish Wikipedia. It seems if someone targeting her children would seek their information there instead. And since this information is readily available, any intent on wrongdoing would find this information anyways.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

BLP covers all living ppl and not merely the subjects of articles, that would be giving protection to article subjects and to hell with everyone else including those mentioned in non-biographical articles. Seems an odd interpretation of BLP and PRIVACY says crime or perhaps shooting at someone isnt to be taken as a serious crime risk? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Your assertion that including the names of the children of a public figure puts the children at "any risk is absurd.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

What is absurd is your assertion that BLP only covers protection against minor crimes such as identity theft. If one leader's child has already had an attempt on their life this week why is my assertion absurd exactly? Why should we harrass the unnotable children of politicians by including their names when this could put their lives at risk and when they may be minors? Honduras is a dangerous place including for the children of politicians and your dismissal of this, while entirely in keeping with your character, isnt really acceptable or professional. I dont believe taking info from sources in a poor, small, developing non-English speaking country and introducing them to a whole new readership on the English wikipedia can be helpful to the encyclopedia. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You are the one who cited BLPPRIVACY on the article's talk page. The text on BLPPRIVACY is crystal clear on the rationale for that section. Just because the link has the word "privacy" in it doesn't give you license to invent policy. And I'll kindly ask you not to attribute assertions to me that I never made, specifically "BLP only covers protection against minor crimes such as identity theft". That is what one calls a "straw-man argument". Of course these children are entitled to BLP protections. However being children of a public figure, it should be a surprise to no one that their names are a matter of public knowledge, published in reliable sources, which makes your argument that adding their names to the article "could put their lives at risk" rather naive. Those horses have left the barn. There is a quite a bit of difference between some chance and extremely unlikely chance. And not so much of a spread between extremely unlikely and zero chance. And on a closing note, you should avoid ad-hominem arguments as well. In other words, keep your opinions about my character to yourself, got it? Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

the kids are not notable on their own. there is no actual value in their names. there is no reason to include them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The point of bringing the issue here is determine whether it violates BLP, not to find out if other people agree that there is reason enough to include the names. -- Irn (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Irn. If you want to discuss whether they should be included (and perhaps they shouldn't for the reason pointed out by RedPen), then do that at the article.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

At least one of the children plays an important role in the campaign, and there should be any issue to mention her in the article. --Soman (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no dog in this particular fight, but I feel compelled to comment on this statement: " I dont believe taking info from sources in a poor, small, developing non-English speaking country and introducing them to a whole new readership on the English wikipedia can be helpful to the encyclopedia."

This has got to be one of the most mind-numbingly bizarre arguments I've seen. First of all, it is paternalistic in the extreme. It smacks of: "Oh, those poor peoples just don't know journalism, we need to protect them from their own ignorance." Even if such a reading was not implied intentionally, it still says: "I don't believe in sharing verified information from reliable sources in Wikipedia." Isn't that exactly what articles are supposed to have, or have I been wrong about the entire point of Wikipedia all this time?--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

As this has been sitting idle for a few days now, is it safe to say that no one else sees mentioning these names as a violation of WP:BLP? -- Irn (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a correct assumption. See also [23], the Xiomara campaign hardly tries to shield her children from the public. --Soman (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Lawrence Keyte

Please can someone take a look at the latest addition to the biography of Lawrence Keyte. It is all sourced, but does it add undue weight to the bio? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd remove mention of the child pornography charge since it was stayed. I'd add it back if the charge is renewed. The rest of it should stay, since the charges appear to have weight, and appear to have stuck. Since the article is a stub, the spirit of WP:UNDUE would be better served by expanding the rest of the article in order to reduce the weight of the charge of misconduct. --Rawlangs (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Martin Bashir

Martin Bashir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm concerned about recent additions to Martin Bashir about offensive comments he recently made about Sarah Palin. You can see them at this diff, where I'm removing the section added. My concern is twofold: with reference to Bashir himself, I don't believe that these comments rise to the level of importance to pass WP:UNDUE, though they may well in the future if this has some sort of lasting impact on him. But moreso, I'm concerned that us repeating the actual comments continues the victimization of Sarah Palin. As I've said on the article's talk page, even if we meet WP:UNDUE, I think that we cannot possibly at all justify repeating Bashir's comments, and I've asserted that the issue is so extreme it constitutes a BLP exemption to 3RR. But, I suppose I could be wrong. Could I get the input of some BLP specialists? Also, please note that I've requested full protection of the article to stop the edit warring without the info included while discussion continues. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the diff you gave shows removal of what you intended to remove. That said, I'm not convinced that it should be removed. When notable people make well-sourced extremely disparaging comments about other notable people, Wikipedia tends to include it all, I think. It's not much different from describing a crime, and naming the crime victim. On the other hand, WP:BLP says: "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." The details are revealing about Bashir, but they victimize Palin, so it's a dilemma. Palin is an adult, so that removes some of the difficulty, and she's also a very public figure, which further reduces the difficulty. I'd include it all, but if there is concern about Palin then simply leave out her name and say the comments were about a Republican political figure (readers could get the details from the cited sources).Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized later that I didn't actually remove the whole section like I intended...but I decided that I wouldn't go any further, since it's only the comments about Palin that fall under BLP concerns, so more reverting on the section as a whole would constitute edit warring on my part. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Considering all of the incindery things that Bashir says on a regular basis I am almost suprised that he finally crossed the line that even the left (media) had to address. I am not seeing the BLP issue here. Arzel (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is not a BLP issue, and consensus for inclusion has already been reached via normal channels. That leaves the matter of "protecting Palin from further victimization", which is a non-starter both because Palin is a public figure, and also because Bashir's comments were not in any way libelous. 97.113.5.118 (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

As of now, the article is fully protected (i.e. totally frozen), and the quote in question is not in this (wrong) version.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Editing an article and then protecting it is something that should only be done in extreme circumstances. As there seems to be clear consensus both here and at Talk:Martin Bashir that there is no BLP-problem, I've asked User:Ged UK to either explain what problems currently exist, or unprotect the article so that normal WP:BRD-editing can resume. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the editing-then-freezing, which indeed was extraordinary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I've submitted an edit request at the article talk page.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Request still pending.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There was nothing unusual, because I firmly believed, and still believe, that this is a BLP violation; admins are actually required when they protect a page that they don't protect (or quickly fix if they weren't aware of them) any BLP or copyvio problems. And if an admin felt I was trying to "win" the revert war, they could simply have reverted to the version before I made the request (which is something I've done when protecting pages myself). Alternatively, they could have even reverted back to before any of the info was added; I would argue the edit war "started" with the bold insertion of info in the first place. There were all sorts of options; the fact that the slightly redacted version is the one that it was left in does not mean that's the "best" version; as the edit request section on the talk page shows, I appear to be in a minority of one, as sick and disgusted as that makes me feel. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I would agree that this stuff would not belong at her Wikipedia article. It's in his because it says something about him.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Farhad Ahmed Dockrat and Junaid Ismail Dockrat

This article, and the article for his cousin Junaid Ismail Dockrat, both claim that the two men are terrorists. The only supporting references are almost the same, a 2007 newspaper article where both men dispute the claims made by the USA. The first link is dead. I'm sure this falls well short of reliable sources for such a serious accusation. --Dmol (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The accusations from the first link were repeated here. This link reports that the "The South African government has been in contact with the United States regarding two SA citizens with suspected links to al-Qaeda, the Department of Foreign Affairs". The entry as it stands says they are accused of being terrorists (which they apparently are). I don't see a BLP issue here. The subjects are notable only for this accusation. --Rawlangs (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: I don't mean to say they're apparently terrorists, I mean to say they've apparently been accused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawlangs (talk • contribs) 00:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Bernhard Goetz on Bernhard Goetz

More eyes would be welcomed on this article as Goetz is disputing Time Magazine as a reliable source [24] and tag bombing a paragraph. [25] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

With Mr. Goetz now explicitly threatening to edit war, it might be time for an uninvolved admin to have a look. L H M 09:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I've protected this for a week, hopefully others will get involved (I doubt I'll do more). Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be protected, and NeilN appears to have done an admirable job.

I do however have some commentary for NeilN. Remember to assume good faith, even where you suspect a conflict of interest. WP:BLPEDIT states "Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves [...]. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. [...] Edits like this by subjects should not be treated as vandalism; instead, 'the subject should be invited to explain their concerns'."

You're doing the right thing by engaging the subject on the talk page and bringing the discussion here, but replies like "I'm not interested in entertaining your conspiracy theories especially with your conflict of interest." seem purpose-written to spark anger in the subject (even if you think he deserves it).

Otherwise, as before, admirable job. Keep it up. --Rawlangs (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

@Rawlangs I'll keep that in mind but honestly, I wanted to shut down that particular conversation as soon as possible. Implying the current Editor in Chief of Time Magazine got his position by practicing dubious journalism is also a BLP violation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Linda Miller

I was reading her biography and she was credited with being in the film King Kong Escapes. However, it is wrong. The Linda Miller who appeared in that film is not Jackie Gleason's daughter. That Linda Miller was an American model living in Japan at the time the movie was filmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:47BE:DCE9:21D9:DF8:89AB:5C5A (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it looks like you've already changed the article, but you should cite a source or you're likely to be reverted. --Rawlangs (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Diarmuid Connolly Gaelic footballer

Diarmuid is not a scumbag Diarmuid does not hold any "red card record" Most of the article is false and libellous! Previously it was factual but clearly someone with a grudge against him has change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.48.49 (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks like vandalism. I'll see if I can revert to a verifiable state. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at this further, I think that it will need the attention of someone familiar with Gaelic football, and with Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. Connolly seems to be a controversial figure, and it may be difficult to strike the right balance. I'll reduce the article to a stub for now, and leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gaelic games asking for assistance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Obviously someone was using the article to run a hatchet job on the subject. I tend to get tripped by the various sport notability criteria (which in my opinion should not exist), but maybe this is AFD material §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Carol Rosin

My main concern is only that decisions against deletion seem one-off and irrevocable thereafter. At least none of the links on the talk page lead me to where I can reopen discussion or give support for deletion.

I have no personal grudge against this person, but I strongly suspect this is a self-promoting living bio without substance.

Everything on the page, possibly bar a Bachelor's degree and being president of an obscure society, is unsubstantiated. I would like to post support for deleting living bio pages where this is the case. But I can find no place to suggest it.

HenrikErlandsson (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

If you believe an article is non-notable then please follow WP:AFDHOWTO. Giant Snowman 20:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion. --Rawlangs (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks both for help. I used the AfD How-To, but it seems step III is done for you now; at least the log already contained the 3rd nomination from the previous step, but I blindly followed the guide. (User:Thomas.W corrected the duplicate entry in seconds - I'm impressed.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenrikErlandsson (talk • contribs) 22:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Tarun Tejpal

Subject is in middle of sexual assault controversy. Anmol.2k4 (talk · contribs) keeps adding excessive details without a regard for WP:BLP. I am reporting here so I won't be going in for WP:3RR. Expect someone to cleanup soon. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evano1van (talk • contribs)

Per WP:BLPCRIME, we tend to keep that sort of thing off bios unless and until there is some greater impact that can be considered not undue in relation to the rest of the article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

There have been serious violations of WP:BLP policy in the article - I suggest that everyone involved reads it before editing further. Extra eyes would also be welcome. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks @FreeRangeFrog:,@AndyTheGrump:. Although I am not sure if blanking is okay as the subject has accepted the allegation and stepped aside from editorship of national magazine and reliable sources in the country have covered the fact. I was uncomfortable with excessive detailing and undue coverage to the incident. I think the mention of the controversy would be inevitable over a period of time, but it may need very tight wording which can only be written as more facts emerge. Thanks for helping out. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 20:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Waiting for facts is good. If this incident has long-term significance, it will probably merit inclusion in the article. It certainly doesn't need to be slapped into the middle of the lede, and then repeated in overwhelming detail in the article body... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

a) Enough facts have already emerged in credible sources in Indian Media(all are major national newspapers/news channels/news magazines):-

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/accused-of-sexual-assault-by-staffer-tehelka-founder-steps-down-for-6-months/1197545/ http://news.oneindia.in/new-delhi/tehelka-shock-tarun-tejpal-steps-down-on-charges-sexual-harassment-1345038.html

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/370141/tarun-tejpal-quits-tehelka.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Tehelkas-editor-Tarun-Tejpal-steps-aside-after-incident-with-woman-journalist/articleshow/26112145.cms?

http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/tarun-tejpal-steps-down-for-6-months-as-editor-of-tehelka-113112000997_1.html

http://blogs.outlookindia.com/default.aspx?ddm=10&pid=3084&eid=31

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/tarun-tejpal-steps-down-as-tehelka-s-editor-for-six-months-over-alleged-sexual-assault-448746?curl=1384978956

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/tejpal-steps-down-as-tehelka-editor-for-six-months/article1-1153778.aspx

http://www.livemint.com/Consumer/l7JU2uIFUeILFLuv2vgyeL/Tarun-Tejpal-steps-down-as-Tehelka-editor-for-6-months.html

http://www.indileak.com/tehelkas-editor-tarun-tejpal-quits-after-sexual-assault-charge/

http://www.exchange4media.com/53529_tarun-tejpal-steps-down-as-tehelka-editor-for-six-months.html

b) Man in question have accepted the charges and have apologized for same, he is also stepping down from his role in Tehelka

c) Considering that this is sexual assault there will be criminal proceeding against accused, it does have long-term significance.

Anmol.2k4 (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

@Anmol.2k4: I would once again request you to read WP:BLP completely on why such excessive detailing was unacceptable. I agree there has to be a mention of the controversy, but it has to be in line with rest of the article. (I will wait for @FreeRangeFrog:'s opinion as he has cited WP:BLPCRIME and is of opinion its not worthy to find a place in article at all.) When I said 'need more facts', I meant more consequences, details come out directly from involved parties. The above long list of reports are mostly based on one email which was wildly spreading over twitter. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 21:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Claims of death

Sylvia Browne is said to have died today. Initially reported by tabloid TMZ, it has also now been reported by CNN based solely on the fact that her web page says she has died]. Given the ease of hacking websites, do we require better confirmation before the article says she is dead? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd post it. Celebrity deaths are often reported to the media via spokespeople and I don't see how this is different. If you're worried about reliability, don't overstate your source. --Rawlangs (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Now also reported by USA Today, FWIW. http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2013/11/21/renowned-psychic-sylvia-browne-dies-at-77/3662067/ --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954)

The article Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954) says in the lead that he is the "claimant to the thrones of the former Kingdom of Hanover and the former Duchy of Brunswick. ". "Claimant" links to "pretender" and "pretender" may sound negative, but that is the word that is used, neutrally, to describe a person who would be the holder of a royal title if there still were one. A "pretender" often occupies that position merely by having been born as who they are, they do not have to take any active steps to "regain their throne" or even be aware that there ever was one. "Claimant" is not the word which is used, technically and neutrally, to describe such a person and makes it sound like he is such a dolt that he is claiming non-existent thrones. I think it could be seen as potentially libellous. I tried to change "claimant" to the neutral "pretender" but was reverted. Input appreciated.Smeat75 (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

See below. Again, the article title is wrong, he is not Prince Ernst etc, the article title should be his legal name. Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

He indeed was a prince of the UK, so yes the title is correct. All Hanoverian "pretenders" are still descended from George I of the UK who was also elector of Hanover.Camelbinky (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and he's married to a princess, though I am unfamiliar with Monégasque royal customs on whether he can be called prince or not, that should be looked into instead of just basing all this on German laws.Camelbinky (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, be aware that his wife, the heir apparent to Monaco is styled correctly in her article at her article as the Princess of Hanover per[[26]]

His wife is "only" heir presumptive, but is getting closer and closer to becoming a monarch every day. Regardless, Prince Ernst August of Hanover is called Prince Ernst August of Hanover because he is known as such in English. He is not known as Ernst August Prinz von Hannover, or whatever his legal name is, much like Queen Latifah is not known as Dana Elaine Owens. Use common names. Surtsicna (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

ryan tedder

His wife's name is Genevieve not Ashley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.148.231.12 (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Yup. You seem to be right. [27] I've corrected the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"Prussian royal family" box in various articles about living people, article titles

There is a discussion about this at WP:NPOVN#"Prussian royal family" box in various articles about living people. Looking at the discussion, there are apparently several issues. One is the use of the infobox "Prussian Royal Family". Another is the use of "HRH" and HI&RH" prefixes, and a third would be the use of royal titles in the titles of the articles. There is no longer a Prussian Royal Family or any nobiklity in German although it seems that "House of Hohenzollern" is what should be used. We have for instance Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia which suggests is he Prince of Prussia, whereas if you read the first sentence his legal name is "Georg Friedrich Ferdinand Prinz von Preußen" as he was able to make Prince of Prussia his last name. The comma there makes a large difference. I'm not copying over the material from there as I haven't asked the editors for their permission, but I think it is more of a BLP issue than an NPOV so far as it applies to living people. Dougweller (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I copied over the material that I put on the NPOV noticeboard below.Smeat75 (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no such place as Prussia any more and all royal titles in Germany were abolished in 1919. Nevertheless there are quite a few English WP articles with a box "Prussian royal family", see for instance Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia, which lists living members of a non-existent royal family in a non-existent place. The box calls this person "HI&RH The Prince", that is an abbreviation for "His Imperial and Royal Highness" and that is false, he is not, all such titles have been abolished for nearly a hundred years. Some foolish people may still call him that, but that is a mere caprice with no more validity than if I were to call my cat that, and more to the point for WP, it is not sourced. This box links to a list of other "Royal Highnesses" who are no such thing, it is misleading and deceptive and none of it is sourced. If you look at the article on this man on the German WP [28], there is no such box of phoney Royal Highnesses, that is because in Germany they are very well aware that such things do not exist in their country any more. There are a lot of similar boxes with "Royal Highnesses" who are no any such thing any more from former German monarchies such as Bavaria, Hanover, so on and so on, but this one seems particularly silly as there is not even such a place as Prussia any more, never mind Kings and Queens and Princes of it.The German WP article on the person English WP calls Franz, Duke of Bavaria but they call Franz von Bayern [29] says with reference to his "royal title" ""Der Titel „Herzog von Bayern, Franken und in Schwaben, Pfalzgraf bei Rhein“[5] wird noch traditionell verwendet, entspricht jedoch nicht dem amtlichen Namen. Das dem Namen vorangestellte Prädikat „Königliche Hoheit (K.H.)“ bzw. „Seine Königliche Hoheit (S.K.H.)“ wird ebenfalls noch im gesellschaftlichen Umfeld verwendet, ist jedoch ebenso eine reine Höflichkeitsform ohne rechtliche Relevanz" which more or less means "people call him "Your Royal Highness" to his face sometimes just to be nice, but it doesn't mean anything" and that is the situation with all former German royal and noble titles, they were abolished, they do not exist, it is exactly the same as if I said "I think it would be nice if people called me 'Your Royal Highness Mickey the Mouse'"' and some people were silly enough to do that, WP should not be misleading readers into thinking that these abolished royal titles have any validity at all, they do not.In Germany when the royal titles were abolished, they were and are still are allowed to legally change their names to "Joe Princeofsomewherethatdoesn'tevenexistanymore". So "Prince of Prussia" is actually his legal last name, but it does not carry a prefix such as "HI&RH" or "HRH", those were abolished, and there is no such thing as a "Prussian royal family" today.Smeat75 (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

See German nobility. This isn't an uncommon problem. I've just removed titles, etc from David Bagration of Mukhrani (where the lead and infobox made it clear he was a pretender). There's been no Georgian monarchy since 1800. Dougweller (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Dougweller there are going to be lots and lots of articles with these phoney royal titles to alter, thousands probably. For example here is a section of the German WP article on a member of a German family that had titles before 1919 -[30], it just calls the children of the subject of the article by their plain names. The article in the English WP on the same person [31] calls his children (and some of his grandchildren)"Prince" or "Princess" and gives them prefixes of "HH" or "HSH" which is His/Her Highness or His/Her Serene Highness, I think all such articles should have these non-existent "styles and titles" for members of abolished royal dynasties removed, the English WP should be like the German one in this matter. Do you agree? ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

With no particular opinion on German nobility or royalty, I do want to make sure you are all aware that due to the once personal union between the Kingdom of Hanover and the UK that the current "pretenders to the throne" are still, by British law, eligible to be titled prince and/or other noble titles; and as pretenders to a throne we can not violate NPOV by declaring "this person is NOT a prince though they claim it", unless we attribute that statement to a source as the source's words, not ours. See- Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954) as a good example of how to correctly portray German royalty in the instance of Hanover. Hanover is a special case though and may not work with the circumstances of Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Hesse, etc. I just don't want a witch hunt started in Germany (I'm Jewish I know how those work out) that then Hanover gets caught up in and things are messed. But of course I now see it has drawn attention to this anti-German-nobility witch hunt and fear that the article will soon not be a good example.Camelbinky (talk) 16:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You don't want a witchhunt started but you are accusing me of starting one? And just how isn't that a personal attack? And a link to the British law would be helpful. If that's right, it's an exception, not a precedent. Dougweller (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Dr Maryanne Demasi

Dr Maryanne Demasi has had her page edited more than once to remove positive and balanced comments, leaving only defamatory remarks. I am trying to keep an even handed approach in the article, though it is continuously edited to represent Dr Demasi in a negative light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulumartin1981 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

@Lulumartin1981 I cannot see any defamatory remarks in the IP's version and it seems to me you are under-emphasizing how strongly Demasi was criticized for her program. Also, you have not replied to the IP on the article's talk page. There may be a case for undue weight but being accused of journalistic misconduct should appear in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

IP version looks basically fine to me too. I would suggest attemtping constructive discussions on the talk page (the IP account has started a section, albeit with an unfortunate title) before bringing things here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

IP version is fine. I also note that the reporting editor has only made edits to the reported page. Given the above comments about "defamatory remarks", there's very probably a WP:COISELF issue here. --Rawlangs (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Stephanie Sheh

Stephanie Sheh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just looking at this makes my teeth hurt. If anyone has the inclination to cut, here's a lengthy bio with endless voice-over credits, and no sources. JNW (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

An IP has made over 1300 edits to the page over the last two years. Possible violation of WP:COS. Consider opening a parallel discussion at WP:COIN. --Rawlangs (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Please do. Scissors are needed here. This article is completely unsourced!Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't need scissors, it needs industrial shears. I've started taking out the worst of the fancruft and CV info, and will get to endless lists of companies and also the opinion pieces. --Dmol (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Just finished a major gutting.--Dmol (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh my. Here's another one suffering from the same issues. Kari Wahlgren Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I've asked for a look see from the folks at the Film Project. I'll put the scissors back in my pocket for now.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Kudos to you both. Great work, JNW (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Bańska Niżna article

Got a WP:BLP matter at this article, if the person exists. See Mehow27 (talk · contribs). It's very likely that Mehow27 is referring to himself; in addition to insisting that this material be in that article, also notice how the username is a play on the man's name. Flyer22 (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Meh. Non-constructive edits to a non-biographical article. Consider reporting the user to WP:AIV to have him blocked. --Rawlangs (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Josip Šimunić

I added a paragraph regarding Šimunić's actions after the Croatia-Iceland world cup qualifier game as I believed his behaviour was worthy of being included in the article. I note that 93.138.50.215 has removed this paragraph three times and has not at any time cited the reason for doing so. While the paragraph was about his actions with a controversial topic "Croatian Ultra-Nationalism", the paragraph included Šimunić's own reported justification of his actions in a reputable source and therefore is as objective as is possible in these circumstances. I did not believe the langauge I used was emotive or inflammatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.164.238 (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you're in the right here and have replaced the content. I know you are an anonymous editor, but if this continues you should request page protection. If you do that, neither you nor the other IP editor will be able to change content until the block expires. --Rawlangs (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The IP continued to revert the edits. I requested page protection and it was granted. If there are edits you would like to add, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page and I would be happy to make them for you. You could also register an account and do some simple edits on other pages to have it auto-confirmed. --Rawlangs (talk) 04:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Bernard Parmegiani

Somebody has added a death date for Bernard Parmegiani but there's no source given and I can't find any news reports to confirm this. Shouldn't Wikipedia wait until there's a report to refer to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.231.18 (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Google just indexed a report of his death here. I updated the page with the citation, and did some other minor stuff. --Rawlangs (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.231.18 (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Frederick M. Dolan

Frederick M. Dolan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

IP inserted defamatory information that has now been revdel'ed. A few more eyes would be good in case they return. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Watchlisted.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

david ortiz

David Ortiz Reference number 18 on this page does not lead to a link and is possibly vandalism

Done Simple vandalism. I fixed it.--Auric talk 01:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Susan Lindauer

Does anyone see a problem with adding this quote "co-workers recalled her as a woman who was prone to mood swings and erratic behavior." from the Seattle-PI? So far it's the only one I've seen, and I'm hazy on whether she is a limited public figure at the time that quote was derived.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

NVM, the NYT confirms this.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mezigue's assessment. I'd like to add that no where in the article should we speculate on the subjects mental health. Let the newspapers do that for us, and if in doubt, leave it out.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Part II

User:TheRedPenOfDoom is claiming that the having the article stateHer colleagues at The Herald commented that at times, her behavior was "erratic." is a BLP violation. However this is directly sourced from the New York Times in an article titled An Antiwar Activist Known for Being Committed Yet Erratic[32]. These assessments are also corroborated by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer[33] as well as the Seattle Times[34] and KBOO [35]. These opinions are from her former colleagues at The Herald (Everett). According to the sources, it is not just one person making these claims, nor does it appear that the sources have failed to follow their normal due diligence. It is quite common for newspapers to interview a subject's neighbors and co-workers to help explain paint a picture of what type of person they are. There are still yet other sources that also comment on her demeanor; One in which she is called "nuts"[36], one which diplomatically states she "had her own way of doing things]"[37], and she was "erratic and prone to perceptions of crisis."(WashPost paywall).

Considering that her mental competency was challenged is an integral part of this article, is it appropriate to add this brief assessment? Is it a BLP violation?Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Precisely because allegations of mental competency are involved we most certainly CANNOT be inserting random claims from random people with no training or expertise in the field just because they have made off hand "testimonials" to a journalist. We dont include Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Critical_response man on the street movie reviews for lack of expertise, there is no fucking way we allow the same for judgment of mental health of a living person! [[WP:C-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

However no claims of mental competency (or lack) are being made by the edit in question. Her colleagues called her behavior erratic and flaky. No diagnoses of a mental condition is being proffered, so it doesn't matter if those who commented are not professionals. Now if they edit were to have said "Colleagues said she was bi-polar", you might have a point. However I doubt sources like the NYT would ever print such a statement in the first place.

I fail to see the problem with this edit in that A) it is well sourced, B) it is relevant, C) it says what needs to be said with no fan-fare and D) these opinions are attributed to those who made them. That multiple sources feel these opinions are relevant are more than enough reason for this to be included. Outside opinions are used all the time to paint a clearer picture. This search of wikipedia for site:en.wikipedia.org according "was a loner" shows that non-professional assessments of demeanor are used all the time.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

We only include opinions of people who matter. These peoples "opinions" do not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that, although the articles come from reliable sources, the actual claims do not. They are anonymous and made by obviously unskilled/untrained in psychology people. The article already makes it clear that actual, trained psychologists/psychiatrists examined her and made their judgment that she was incapable of standing trial. Adding these anonymous claims only adds gossip. It is unnecessary to paint the clear picture of the article subject's behavior. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The claims are not anonymous. Two supervisors, both named commented on workplace behavior. They, by definition are supposed to be judging on the job behavior. It still seems strange to me that multiple sources saw fit to publish these claims, yet it is not fit for us to parrot them here.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Those that are not anonymous are not relevant. From the NYT article, we have one supervisor whose most damning statement is, "I certainly saw some signs of flakiness." From the Seattle P-I, we have a reporter that says, "One minute she could be very pleasant and the next very bitter." Etc. etc. The named sources basically call her difficult and flaky. I'm not aware of any DSM-IV disorder based on difficulty and flakiness. I am certain that the actual psychiatrists that examined her and whose conclusions are already in the article are more relevant than these supervisors and co-workers. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

They both (the supervisors) stated she was erratic. AFAICT the disputed text is true to what the sources state. No one that I can tell has argued that the text in question suggests to the reader that the observations are in fact, or purport to be a clinical diagnoses. I can however, see the view that the social workers views may be more relevant if we were talking about the same time frame. I believe these observations were made years prior to her forced hospitalization. I'm not too keen on pushing this any further, because after examining the editing history it appears that Susan is possibly following this article. Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The green quote at the top about being erratic is fine, as written, from what I can see here. (Somebody who has read the sources and the article will have to be the judge of how emphasis and placement concerns are handled... and WP:BLP definitely applies there of course.) It does not matter that those being quoted were not professional psychiatrists licensed by the state; it does not matter that the statements were not made in peer-reviewed scientific journals, or put into a medical dossier based on the judgment of professionals about the person's medical mental health.

The sources we have fully back up the sentence, and the sources are Reliable... which is not the same as colloquially-reliable. TRPoD misunderstands that WP:FRINGE only applies to science-and-medical-claims *about* the fields of science and medicine. The NYT was merely *journalistically* noting some WP:NOTEWORTHY opinions from everyday people that were "experts" on the BLP's everyday behavior. This is not a medical diagnosis, nor a scientific claim, and since multiple independent reliable journalists have published the stuff, and multiple independent reliable editorial-boards have fact-checked the stuff, it goes in the article. WP:FRINGE is totally inapplicable here. Just be very clear that these are *churnalism* claims, and wikipedia is not making *any* statements about the woman's mental health (or for that matter about DSM-IV ... which *does* in fact contain about thirty different Officially Recognized Medical Ailments that everyday folks would just call bad-hair-day-syndrome).

Also, please do your very best to figure out what is actually true, and write the article to reflect that (without eliding any Reliable Sources however). Was the woman really erratic? Or was that just the excuse the boss used to (fire her / whine later / whatever they were interviewed about) in a way that covered the employer's butt? Was the NYT journalist biased? Just because somebody said it, don't make it true, and just because the NYT satisfies WP:RS, don't make them unbiased. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in my analysis that even touches on FRINGE - where are you getting that from?

And it is absurd to state that the qualifications of the people making the claims of "erratic" about a living person irrelevant. BLP requires the highest quality of sources. We don't include the opinions and observations of the man on the street about films, there is no fucking way we would include their opinions about mental health status. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not absurd, however what is bordering on absurd is assuming one need bona fides to make an everyday observation.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

People without bona fides are free to make whatever observations they want. As an encyclopedia we however follow WP:UNDUE and particularly WP:BLP when determining whose observations of what we include in an article. And the persons bona fides absolutely make a difference. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Neither of those polices support your position, because by its very nature this claim doesn't require an expert opinion. If we were attempting to make a specific claim, such as so and so was schizophrenic, your point would make more sense. I really wish you would address this point of why this non--medical claim (attributed nonetheless) requires a medical certification. Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. If film reviews require recognized expertise to be included, we cannot be taking man on the street observations about mental health about LIVING PEOPLE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

What is nonsensical is that you fail to comprehend, despite having it pointed out to you multiple times, is that the text in question is not talking about her "mental health". Would it be permissible for a non-mental health professional to say that someone was behaving (aggressive/happy/upset/dazed) in a specific situation?Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I will point you towards something that someone, (oh, yes that someone is YOU) stated "Considering that her mental competency was challenged is an integral part of this article, is it appropriate to add this brief assessment? Is it a BLP violation?Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)" Yes, her mental health has been challenged and is an integral part of the article and therefore ABSOLUTELY NO it is NOT appropriate to be inserting any random speculations by nonexperts. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This is like talking to a brick wall, and it's obvious your obfuscation is intentional.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Dispute over redaction of comments

While looking though the WP:FAR page I saw a comment by User:Overagainst in which they quoted a statement made by User:Wehwalt on Talk:Natalee Holloway. The context was that a suspect in the Holloway case had murdered a woman in Lima. The statement suggested that the suspect should instead have murdered another (identified) living person. I regarded this as a grave BLP violation and redacted it (noting BLP as the reason).[38]. I also redacted Overagainst's quotation of the statement (again, saying that quoted statement was a BLP violation).[39]. I then left notes on both users' talk pages.[40][41] Wehwalt reverted both the redactions, claiming that there was no BLP violation.[42][43] I restored my redactions, noting that material removed on BLP grounds should not be restored without consensus.[44][45] Wehwalt against reverted the redactions.[46][47] I again restored the redactions, saying that I was happy to discuss the matter, but that the material must stay out in the meantime per BLP#Restoring deleted content.[48][49] I also posted on Wehwalt's talk page, quoting that section of the BLP policy.[50]

I now bring the matter here for discussion. The statement seems to me a clear BLP violation. Wehwalt states that "offensive is not BLP",[51] but my understanding is that BLP does not allow us to make offensive and derogatory statements about living persons. I note that the section of the policy on Non-Article Space expressly states: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate."[52] This was certainly not related to content choices, and suggesting someone should be murdered is clearly contentious and inflammatory.

I would be grateful for opinions on this. Thanks, Neljack (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of a good-faith reason why a statement of "so-and-so should kill so-and-so", when the subjects are living people, would ever be allowed to stand in this project, but I cannot fathom one. Redaction was appropriate here IMO, as such a comment cannot possibly be a step towards the goal of article improvement, i.e. what talk pages are for. Tarc (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not the first time we've seen similar distasteful and misogynistic comments from this editor: here he refers to Natalee Holloway as a dead horse. However. The problem in this case is that it will be difficult to demonstrate the pervasive POV present in that article without linking to the inappropriate comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

That pervasive POV is called "neutrality", Sandy. Whatever you may think of Wehwalt's sense of humor or lack of it, the article has been carefully watched over by other editors for years, and I'm getting tired of these accusations from you.—Kww(talk) 15:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No, the article has been carefully owned by three editors, one now gone, replaced by a new third, and comments from a much larger and wider readership have been ignored for at least five years. (See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Natalee Holloway/archive2 and article talk.) Perhaps you want to update the maintained template to reflect that Montanabw appeared after AuburnPilot left? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, please stop making false accusations. The article is neutral, having survived review after review. Your desire to bias the article in favor of Natalee and Beth does not prevent the article from being neutral and your constant negativity about the editors responsible for keeping the article neutral is not constructive behaviour.—Kww(talk) 16:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

A tasteless joke? Certainly. Probably a candidate for redaction simply for being tasteless and rude? Yes. But a BLP violation? No.—Kww(talk) 15:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Without commenting on the appropriateness of the "dead horse" bit, I'd note it refers to a common idiom, and probably meant that way. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, no accounting for taste. Or sensitivity to the living relatives of the dead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Aw, gee, another Sandy eruption? I was going to reply substantively … does anyone buy she is not coordinating all this? Is there no end, even after six and a half years, to her obsession with this article? I'm not going to argue over a statement three and a half years old I made in shock over the news of events in Peru. I'm not going to argue at every forum she chooses to start a fight at. Do as you like about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

oh my. When multiple editors (whom I have never even heard of) show up with the same issues raised by boatloads of others in the past, suddenly I am "coordinating it"? You know, Wehwalt, you should be blocked for that assertion and attempted character assassination. Further, neither did I start this nor any of the other discussions in numerous other places. Now, since there has been ZERO off-wiki discussion, coordination, or ANYTHING from me about this issue, I suggest you redact your false accusation. For the record, I have never encountered nor interacted with either this NelJack editor nor the Overagainst editor, nor do I have any idea what brought them to the article. I do, on the other hand, notice that arb Newyorkbrad removed some of the disgusting text as a disgrace to the way Wikipedia treats the living relatives of victims, following an open and public discussion on his talk[53]-- an edit which has now been reverted.[54] As you know, you cannot say the same about your connections to the editors supporting the article. The only connection I can see for the sudden appearance of your associate, Montanbw (a horse editor), on this article, after the departure of AuburnPilot, is the frequent, disgusting and unfortunate reference to dead horses (and more). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, how long ago was the dead horses reference? How many years? Seems to me you are accusing me of the same off-wiki coordination that you deny yourself. Just phrasing it as "you cannot say the same about your connect to the editors supporting the article" doesn't change what is meant. Again, Sandy, you are doing the usual. And when editors show up spouting your standard line, and you follow close in behind them both here and on the FAR page, well, I will simply adopt your phrasing and say " Now, since there has been ZERO off-wiki discussion, coordination, or ANYTHING from me about this issue, I suggest you redact your false accusation."--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you are well aware that your assertion will not stand up to evidence. Private emails can be forwarded to ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sandy, I think the last time I emailed you was sometime before you resigned as delegate. Aside from that, I have no idea what you are talking about.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

(FreeRangeFrog, he used a link of the Natalee Holloway page to the words "filly from Alabama").

I'm not an expert, but if a BLP violation is grounds for redaction of a talk page comment then Neljack and Tarc are right and it should be removed.Overagainst (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You aren't, it isn't one, and it shouldn't be.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

So, let me see: you go to NYB's talk page and knowingly misdescribe the legal description for a no-fault divorce in Alabama as being "negative information", he makes the mistake of trusting your veracity over the topic, and that's anybody's fault but your own? You haven't dropped that particular stick for years, and that's despite the fact that you know it's not negative information. I can't see any positive motivation behind your actions.—Kww(talk) 17:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

And there is a reason I can't join an ongoing conversation about victimization of victims on a public talkpage? I imagine User:Newyorkbrad, an attorney, knows nothing about divorce and had no good reason for removing that text except that the all-powerful SG suggested it was off-topic and victimization of the victims. I also imagine NYB does anything I want and suggest, and buys everything I say. Bzzzt. Try again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No. No reason. It's just that these confrontations are always of your initiation and follow your coming to the page. You notice I never seek you out or visit the various medical pages where you now work. In fact, if you would avoid these confrontations, we would likely have no conflict. As for NYB, I did not see what he did, perhaps I missed that conversation and edit. I am busy with other things, and would like to be more so, if you would just let all of this go after 6+ years.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

False, character assassination again. I have never encountered either Overagainst or the Neljack fellow, and had nothing to do with any initiation of anything. Unless you are suggesting they are socks of someone unknown to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You knowingly made a false statement to him, Sandy. It's been explained to you multiple times that that language refers to no-fault divorce. You know better. Did he respond quickly because he trusted you? Probably. That doesn't reduce your culpability in knowingly making a false statement in an effort to get the article to change in the direction you desire. You have never managed to coherently explain why you think it is negative to indicate that the divorce was a no-fault divorce, and I don't believe that you actually think it is negative. You appear to have centered in on the "scary-looking language" issue as a way to get people that consider the issue quickly to take your side.—Kww(talk) 17:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I am going to cautiously disengage from this conversation, though I will continue to monitor it. However, I would like, Sandy, if we could both go do something else for a few hours and allow all this to cool a a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Wehwalt, Natalee Holloway was legally declared dead in 2012. You called her 'the filly from Alabama' in 2010, so that was a BLP violation too. How many others?Overagainst (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

@Wehwalt, Good idea, me too. But Template:Editnotices/Page/Natalee Holloway has to be dealt with. There is no reason for us to have threatening editnotices on articles, implying editors will get in trouble from admins if they engage the article (except in unusual circumstances, such as when there are arb sanctions in place). That bad idea needs to be addressed on a global level (as in, with respect to all FAs or not, and without the threatening "admin" language). So, we aren't completely done yet. For another day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I have blanked the edit notice, which is no longer needed as the article is less active. Would that all our differences were so easily resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I do think that in the New Year, we should hold a discussion in the appropriate place (perhaps WT:FAC) about whether some sort of editnotice should be on FAs, but we are approaching the holiday season, when editors are busy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. Uh-oh, not another post-New Year conversation :). Can we close this? I'm not going to press to have the text restored and the rest has had enough replies.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I just want to make clear that I have never interacted with SandyGeorgia before this thread, so the suggestion that she put me up to this is completely wrong. As I have said above, I only saw the comment because it was quoted on FAR, which I look through occasionally. Neljack (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Neljack; I would have thought that obvious. Because the BLP concerns at this article are ongoing, and there are what appear to be multiple misunderstandings or varying interpretations of BLP policy in all directions, it would be good if some more experienced BLP eyes would get involved with the article. The errors/issues/whatever we call them are going in all directions. To clean up several outstanding issues above:

"The article is neutral, having survived review after review. ...—Kww(talk) 16:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC) I am unaware of any "review after review". The FAC was passed (by me) in 2008 and was largely based on news reports available at the time. It hadn't been sufficiently updated, but that work is now going to proceed, per the FAR. Immediately after it appeared on the main page a few months later, a Featured article review was initiated and closed on procedural grounds (instructions there say that a FAR may not be initiated right after an article has run TFA, which allows editors time to correct issues raised on mainpage day).
"... does anyone buy she is not coordinating all this? Is there no end, even after six and a half years, to her obsession with this article? Although these are the kinds of statements that would result in a block for a non-admin, no grudges; I believe it should be apparent by now that I'm not. I'd like to think that If I Ruled The World, a reasonable FAR would have been the result. As to "obsession", the last time I visited the article or its talk page was in 2008. I did not ask for the dead horse comments to occur in 2010, and I was shocked when they did.
"You knowingly made a false statement to him, Sandy. It's been explained to you multiple times that that language refers to no-fault divorce. ...—Kww(talk) 17:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC) This is the version before the spurious "divorce" text was removed. It said, "Jug Twitty began divorce proceedings on December 29, 2006, stating the two have "such a complete incompatibility of temperament that the parties can no longer live together." The same version also said, "Beth Holloway reportedly began dating John Bennett Ramsey, the father of JonBenét Ramsey, whom she met at a fundraiser following the death of his wife to ovarian cancer. However, Ramsey downplayed their relationship, stating that they "developed a friendship of respect and admiration" out of common interests related to their children." The article is about the disappearance of Natalee Holloway. The notion that anything related to her mother's divorce or dating life belongs in this article is unsubstantiated, and has never been substantiated, there is no connection anywhere in the text to anything related to "no fault divorce" (that appears to be original research), and whether the mother's divorce was because she was the Wicked Witch of the West or Good Ga-linda has nothing to do with her daughter's death. These statements had no place in the article, and after some edit warring, were removed. Because he said that I "knowingly ma[de] a false statement in an effort to get the article to change", it is not clear to me that KWW agrees at this point that these statements should have been removed, so that is an ongoing BLP concern, should they re-appear. This text creates POV by disparaging the mother of a dead girl. But there are other issues occurring in the article, continued below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

"such a complete incompatibility of temperament that the parties can no longer live together" is not only a quote from the source, it is a direct quote from ALA CODE § 30-2-1 : Alabama Code - Section 30-2-1: GROUNDS. Read the code: "such a complete incompatibility of temperament that the parties can no longer live together" is the Alabama language for "no fault divorce". This has been explained to you many times, and it does not portray Beth Holloway in a negative light. It is logically impossible for a statement of "incompatibility" between two people to portray one or the other in a negative light. I have to assume that you understand that, and thus, I have to assume your description of it as a "slur" was an intentionally false statement on your part. The issue as to whether it belongs in the article is reasonably up for discussion, but describing it as a "slur" is simply untrue, nor can it reasonably be read as "disparaging the mother of a dead girl". It was not described as "no-fault divorce" in the article because that would be original research. The article is constrained to using what sources have said, and they all seem to have presumed that their audience would understand that "incompatibility" was a form of no-fault divorce. None of them felt it necessary to explain further, thus, we can not.

As to whether discussion of Beth belongs in the article: of course it does. The recent misnaming of the article is not a reason to start excluding information about the events surrounding the investigation: if accuracy is the goal, then the article should be moved to "Investigation and Intense Media Coverage Surrounding the Unexplained Disappearance of Natalee Holloway", and Beth Holloway is certainly a part of the intense media coverage surrounding the unexplained disappearance of Natalee Holloway. That's the problem with the move to this new title: we know very little about Disappearance of Natalee Holloway. In fact, we know nothing about the disappearance itself. The article is about the investigation and media coverage surrounding that investigation.

As for the notion that the article is slanted towards the perspective of "promiscuous trashy gringas": no. It isn't. What the article does not do is presume that JvdS actually committed any crime, treat the Aruban police as the modern equivalent of the Keystone Kops, or presume sainthood on the part of the victim or any member of her family. It does a good job of balancing a group of different perspectives on a tragic event. Does the article have problems that could use work? Certainly. But repeatedly treating a well-balanced article as if it is a hit piece is not the place the start. —Kww(talk) 01:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I have searched this entire page, and the only occurrences of the word "slur" are Kww's. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Long reply, all bluff: still no connection between the disappearance/death of Holloway and the divorce of her mother, so using the pretext of "no fault" is no reason to include the text. Much less the information about her dating life. I don't believe I've raised anything about "presume[ing] that JvdS actually committed any crime", so I don't know where the rest of your argument is coming from or how it is related. Regardless of what became of Natalee Holloway, the article has a POV that creates BLP issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no "pretext", nor have I objected to the removal of material about Benet. I really wish you would explain why you repeatedly describe this quote as a "slur" and claim that it "disparages" Beth Holloway. The article does not have a POV that creates BLP issues, which is why your complaints about it keep being dismissed. It isn't from an effort to control the article, it's a result of the fact that objective review of your complaints that the article portrays Natalee as a "promiscuous trashy gringa" generally comes to the conclusion that your objections are without merit.—Kww(talk) 02:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

More deflection. There is no my "complaints about it keep being dismissed" nor "generally comes to the conclusion that your objections are without merit", because I haven't been near the article since 2008. Stay on topic; this is the BLP noticeboard. If you want to attempt to discredit me here, at least try to get your facts straight. You have still provided no reason for the statements about the mother that were in the article, nor reason for them to be connected to the disappearance of her daughter. Since they are no longer in the article, it appears that more people agreed with me than disagreed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not deflection to point out that you have knowingly made false statements. I said that the presence of the text in the article was up for debate, and I have made contributions on the talk page seeking compromise wording. Your description of that text as a "slur" that disparaged Beth Holloway was an intentionally false statement on your part, apparently in an effort to disrupt this BLP review and the FAR. It's not straying off-topic to take note of that fact.—Kww(talk) 03:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's not a deflection; It's a lie and an attempt at character assassination. And if you say it again, KWW, we'll be going up the chain to ArbCom. This case is fetid enough, deep enough, long enough, involves enough different alliances and articles and issues and abuse of admin status, that it wouldn't bother me a bit to air all of it. Last warning. Unless that's the preferred path, do not again accuse me of knowingly making a false statement. IMO, the off-topic, unrelated statements about Beth Twitty's personal life were there for no reason established in the article, and they resulted in a negative slant to the article and on her. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I have searched my talk page, the original post at Newyorkbrad's talk page, and this page, and the only occurrences of the word "slur" are Kww's. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

You will have to forgive me for losing track of the numerous places that you have been complaining about this particular piece of text. Yes, on NYB's page you only used the descriptor "negative" (which doesn't logically describe "incompatible"). You only used the word "slur" at FAR here and here. On this page you have only made the statement that the text was used to "disparage the mother of a dead girl", something which also can not be reasonably applied to a neutral extract of a no-fault divorce from Alabama state code.—Kww(talk) 16:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

In other words, I used the word "slur" long after you accused me of making false statements to Newyorkbrad. OK, we have that straight. No, I don't have to forgive you, but if you ask me to, I will-- because that's the kinda girl I am. We have a fundamental disagreement about our obligation per BLP policy, and how the article is slanted towards creating a negative impression of a living person that I have explained on your talk. Now that it is clear that I did not "knowingly make false statements" anywhere, I believe that we're done with this, and I trust it won't happen again. I hope you are now also aware that the article has not had "review after review"; it hasn't been reviewed since 2008, and since that time there have been continual problems raised on talk, and I trust that issues will be resolved if the battleground ceases and people begin to collaborate. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for opinion of new comment

Is the bit I redact here acceptable? "Where does it say she was sexually promiscuous? No one says that she, personally, room switched, and the evidence was, she did not. The behavior is clearly attributed to the students in general. And yes, it is relevant what the kids as a group did, because they did what they were supposed to do and partied. Whether that led to her fate or not is not for me to say, and if you give the reader less information, he will have a less informed viewpoint at the end of the day. Holloway was an adult and free to be sexually promiscuous if she deemed it appropriate, anyway. From what I recall, (-redacted-).--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2013 "

It can be found here. Overagainst (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It really seems like you're grasping at straws here. What, exactly, is your objection to the bit you redacted? Joefromrandb (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

They are living people as far as I know. The context of the discussion which was about the following quote in the article "described the behavior of the Mountain Brook students, stating there was "wild partying, a lot of drinking, lots of room switching every night."" which i think is inappropriate innuendo about Natalee Holloway (who is now legally presumed dead ) having been sexually promiscuous. That quote is given in the article without representation of any opposing view BTW.

My request for opinion was because I objected to what Wehwalt said about some of Holloways room-mates having 'room switched'. It seems to me to read as an attribution of sexual promiscuity about living people and overstepping the mark of BLP. They are young women, and although their names are not in the article or given on talk, they are are easily identifiable from other sources. Quite an involved explaination there I am afraid. I just thought I'd ask about it. Anyway, thanks for your trouble. .Overagainst (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

New concerns

I am not certain that Overagainst understands our BLP policy. The discussion at the FAR was so large and acrimonious that it was redeacted several times, moved to talk in the interest of space, and collapsed. It is a lot to read through, but statements like As he is a living person and has not been convicted of anything in relation to the dissappearance of Natalee Holloway it would be safest to remove the name of Joran van der Sloot from the article completely. As I have already said, we should not mention the names of the brothers as they have not been convicted of anything. The names of the security guards given in the 2005 arrests section as having been arrested as suspects in the case should be removed too, along with the BLP violation of in the text about their alleged reputations. need to be addressed by BLP-knowledgeable people. The FAR has been placed on hold so some of these issues could be worked out at the relevant noticeboards.
Another BLP matter about http://scrux.com has been raised at ANI, but the argument made there is that this should not have been brought to the "drama boards", so BLP-knowledgeable feedback would be helpful.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

"The FAR has been placed on hold so some of these issues could be worked out at the relevant noticeboards." I did not request or agree to any or all of a raft of issues I raised being taken to noticeboards. If you wish to raise issues on your own account at a noticeboard then by all means do so.Overagainst (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

"Another BLP matter about http://scrux.com has been raised at ANI, but the argument made there is that this should not have been brought to the "drama boards". I did not take that issue to any notice board.Overagainst (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I was not saying you did, Overagainst, nor am I saying that you are the problem at that article. But there are significant BLP issues going all directions. Your instincts about how the POV in the article furthers BLP issues are correct, but at the same time, you have some misunderstanding of actual BLP policy, which is making it hard to uncover the *real* BLP issues (the slanting of the article towards the notion of promiscuous trashy gringas had it coming or had harm come to them because of drunkenness). The problem for outside observers is that to understand the real BLP issues, they need to consult sources and read the entire article and see how the POV affects living people; it is a non-trivial situation, and some of your BLP misunderstanding is making it harder to sort. I suspect (although it's not what I would have done) that the FAR was put on hold so that some of these issues could be worked on more calmly. We have above two experienced admins making charges against me that would result in a block for anyone else; we need uninvolved eyes on the article long-term, and that includes folks who would be willing to look at sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Arachnophobia

This article has a section which lists some notable people who are afraid of spiders. Should these all be sourced? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not sure this is particularly a WP:BLP issue (being falsely accused of being afraid of spiders is hardly something someone is likely to sue over), but per WP:V "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material". One would have thought that it was obvious that an assertion that "person X is arachnophobic" was likely to be challenged if no source was cited. Anyway, you've challenged it now... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I see that the article states that "some statistics show that 50% of women and 10% of men show symptoms" of arachnophobia. If this is indeed the case, I have to question the utility of a list of notable arachnophobes. The list would stand no chance whatsoever of ever being remotely complete. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I've added {{dynamic list}} to that section. That's what it's there for.--Auric talk 23:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed all the unsourced entries from the list. They shouldn't be there if they're not sourced - it's WP:BLPCAT in reverse. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if the picture at the bottom of the article might be frightening to readers who otherwise might be the most interested in reading the article. Maybe a picture of a web instead?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

P.S. See also Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars/Images#Arachnophobia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It's part of the {{Spider nav}} template. I've added code allowing it to be collapsed to conceal the image.--Auric talk 02:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That technique might be useful for other images too.[55][56] It might also help build consensus to include images that have thus far been too controversial to include in Wikipedia articles. But I digress.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Sheesh. I just happened to see this thread because it's below ... that thread ... and now I'll have to go clean up the spider fear, which is a mess. WP:NOT an indiscriminate list. WP:TRIVIA. Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Notable_cases. "If you do include such a list, ensure your entry criteria are well defined so that future editors may know if their additions are welcome. One restriction that some editors favour is to include only those individuals who have lastingly affected the popular perception of a condition, such as through public awareness campaigns or enduring media coverage." Examples being Michael J. Fox, Parkinson's; Ronald Reagan, Alzheimer's; and so on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Alexis Reich -- transition and pronouns

About a month ago I raised a question about this BLP. Included (below)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Upon examining a recent edit to this article I noticed the single sentence discussing Karr's transition that read "Reich began hormone replacement therapy and to transition gender identity in early 2010 including a legal name change" and this had one source. Then I noticed this source was Inside Edition which is essentially a tabloid. I questioned this as being a valid source on the article's talk page, and another editor added several more "sources", all of which (including the original Inside Edition link) are included below.

"John Mark Karr Gets a Sex Change". Inside Edition. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Barnes, Ed (May, 24, 2010). "John Mark Karr Re-Emerges to Form a JonBenet Cult". Fox News. Retrieved 24 October 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Boone, Christian (July 6, 2011). "The enigma formerly known as John Mark Karr is now a piece of art". Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
Rossen, Jeff (June 2, 2010). "Ex-fiancee: Karr wants to form child sex cult". Today. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
"John Mark Karr Gets Sex Change: Report". Huffington post. May 29, 2010. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
Harrell, Ashley (May 24, 2010). "Report: John Mark Karr, Reputed Pedophile, Formed Cult of JonBenet Lookalikes". SF Weekly. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
Grace, Nancy (May 25, 2010). "Man Who Claimed JonBenet Ramsey Killing Accused of Cyber-Stalking". CNN. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
De Yoanna, Michael (March 30, 2010). "Is John Mark Karr Now a Woman?". 5280 Magazine. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
"http://ksfm.cbslocal.com/2010/05/13/jonbenet-ramseys-fake-killer-is-now-living-as-a-woman/". KSFM. May 13, 2010. Retrieved 24 October 2013. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
Rowson, Kevin (June 8, 2010). "John Mark Karr: New Name, New Troubles". 11 Alive. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
Lavietes, Bryan (August 23, 2012). "Pedro Hernandez: Killer, Crazy or Both?". TruTV. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
Burke, Alafair (June 8, 2010). "They're Baa-aaaaack!". Alafair Burke. Retrieved 24 October 2013.

However there is a big problem here. All of the sources included either explicitly reference the Inside Edition claim (one article uses a nebulous "it's been reported") or they don't even support the statement being made. If the Inside Edition article isn't reliable, neither are the rest of the sources that refer to it.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed all of the sources and the information it was supporting.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems a bit hasty. I went to two of your links at random, the one from CNN and the one from Today, and can't see Inside Edition being mentioned in either one. --GRuban (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read what I said again. Either the sources cited IE or they don't even support the statement being made. The CNN and Today links fall under the latter category. Read the articles again, then ask yourself if they support the statement "Reich began hormone replacement therapy and to transition gender identity in early 2010 including a legal name change". Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The CNN source says "Court documents show Karr legally changed his name to Alexis Reich in 2008." The Today source says "Today, he's living as a woman, going by the name Alexis Reich". They don't say anything about the hormone replacement therapy or the 2010 date, but they do support the transition gender identity and the legal name change. --GRuban (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate you watching/reading that. The CNN source does confirm a name change, however the Today clip is basing gender transition claim off of reporting done Diane Diamond from this Daily Beast article. While Ms. Diamond is probably reliable (if it weren't for her stint at NPR I'd probably think otherwise), the Today show video does not appear to be doing any original reporting. I still don't think we've reached the bar of having multiple reliable sources for anything but the legal name change.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, I don't think we should touch the CNN source with a 10-foot pole. A) Nancy Grace? Considering this is the BLP board let me just say I seriously question whether or not she is credible. B) This source is a "rush transcript". I'm only speculating, but it probably didn't have much of an editorial review C) The "source" for this transcript is an "unidentified male" from a video of unidentified origin.Two kinds of pork (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Some time ago an editor asserted Karr was a trans-woman. I started examining the proffered sources and noticed that either the source was unreliable, the source was based upon another source, or the source didn't mention anything about Karr being trans whatsoever. Here is each source, followed by my comments in bold. Please remember these sources have been claimed by others to support the statement that Karr is a trans-woman.

"Horrifying 'Little Girl Sex Cult'". The Daily Beast.Possibly reliable
"John Mark Karr Gets a Sex Change". Inside Edition. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Tabloid journalism, not a RS
Barnes, Ed (May, 24, 2010). "John Mark Karr Re-Emerges to Form a JonBenet Cult". Fox News. Retrieved 24 October 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Does not support the claim being made
Boone, Christian (July 6, 2011). "The enigma formerly known as John Mark Karr is now a piece of art". Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved 24 October 2013. Does not support the claim being made
Rossen, Jeff (June 2, 2010). "Ex-fiancee: Karr wants to form child sex cult". Today. Retrieved 24 October 2013.Not an original story. Story based upon the reporting of Diane Dimond
"John Mark Karr Gets Sex Change: Report". Huffington post. May 29, 2010. Retrieved 24 October 2013. Based off of Inside Edition story
Harrell, Ashley (May 24, 2010). "Report: John Mark Karr, Reputed Pedophile, Formed Cult of JonBenet Lookalikes". SF Weekly. Retrieved 24 October 2013. Based off of Fox News story
Grace, Nancy (May 25, 2010). "Man Who Claimed JonBenet Ramsey Killing Accused of Cyber-Stalking". CNN. Retrieved 24 October 2013. Nancy Grace is a dubious source. Furthermore the source for this story is an unidentified male on an unidentified video
De Yoanna, Michael (March 30, 2010). "Is John Mark Karr Now a Woman?". 5280 Magazine. Retrieved 24 October 2013.Based off of Inside Edition story
"http://ksfm.cbslocal.com/2010/05/13/jonbenet-ramseys-fake-killer-is-now-living-as-a-woman/". KSFM. May 13, 2010. Retrieved 24 October 2013. {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)Based off of Inside Edition story
Rowson, Kevin (June 8, 2010). "John Mark Karr: New Name, New Troubles". 11 Alive. Retrieved 24 October 2013. Makes no mention whatsoever of transition
Lavietes, Bryan (August 23, 2012). "Pedro Hernandez: Killer, Crazy or Both?". TruTV. Retrieved 24 October 2013.Unreliable source
Burke, Alafair (June 8, 2010). "They're Baa-aaaaack!". Alafair Burke. Retrieved 24 October 2013.Unreliable source

Now out of all the sources presented this far, only one of them (IMO) is even approaching a "reliable source", and that is the Diane Dimond piece at The Daily Beast. The rest of the sources either unreliable, parrot the tabloid Inside Edition (hey, we aren't saying it, IE is) or doesn't make the claim that Karr is trans. The only exception is the "Today" story, however that uses Diane Dimond, which makes it another duplicative source.

This issue was also raised at RSN, however no one was able or willing to provide better sources for this statement.

I submit to you these two postulates:

John Mark Karr(aka Alexis Reich) is a living person
John Mark Karr is a limited public figure

This is what the BLP policy says about WP:WELLKNOWN people (bold emphasis added).

“

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

”

Not only do we not have multiple reliable third-party sources, we barely even have one (IMO Diane Dimond is somewhat questionable considering she always skirts the area of tabloid journalism). Per the BLP policy, the claim cannot be reliably sourced to multiple reliable sources. Therefore I have removed the claim and have reverted all the pronouns in the article back to male pronouns.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with that. It was certainly the right thing to do, but editors have so far been successful in using a "who cares what the sources say?" argument to defy policy at that article. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't realized there was all this discussion, but I support using the female pronoun, and making it clear that John Karr is a birth name. Someone rapidly reverted me [57] but I was persuaded by the Daily Beast and another article in Queerty [58] that cites a broken link to AJC and also a Fox News article [59]. I am content to follow the sourcing and use the birth name for all the existing historical content in the article, but we should still signify in the lead, which is in the present tense, that we are aware of the new legal name and sex and are up to date with it. Wnt (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The legal name is sourced. The gender is not sourced. I suggest you read that Fox News article again and notice its ambiguity. Maybe there are other sources out there that support this claim but I haven't found them. The vast majority of the sources point to the IE article. The other instances cite Dimomd.Two kinds of pork (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The "gender change" isn't sourced because it isn't real. Please don't confuse this person's antics with legitimate changes of gender such as Chelsea Manning. I won't go into much detail here, for BLP reasons, but anyone reading the article and following the sources will easily see why Karr wants to pretend he's a woman; it isn't pretty. Any bullshit about "misgendering" this person is a slap in the face to actual transgendered people. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: FYI, there is still an open deletion discussion about this BLP. Also, there's a separate more recent BLPN discussion below (click here).Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Another father in prison

Last time I included the fact that a BLPs father had recently been in prison, I was told to remove it. Should it be in George Campbell (American football)?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

What relevance does that information to the subject of the entry? Why would it belong there instead of, say, an article about the subject's father? Not strictly a BLP issue since the information doesn't bear directly on the subject, but WP:BLP does state "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives". This information might fall into the sensationalist or titillating category. I'd exclude. --Rawlangs (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Assuming his father is alive, WP:BLP directly applies: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page (my emphasis).--ukexpat (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

John J. Donovan

On the John J. Donovan page, there is a paragraph that details allegations that Donovan sexually abused one of his daughters. While it is true that his daughter alleged that Donovan molested her, no charges were ever filed in the case. The Wall Street Journal, among other outlets have also cast doubt on the allegations. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB114566432213333081

The inclusion of the daughter’s allegations looks to be a clear violation of wp:BLPCRIME, especially since no legal action was taken in regards to the case. Jppcap (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see this as a clear violation. WP:BLPCRIME has two core guidelines. First, accused are innocent until proven guilty. Second, "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". The first guideline is met since the entry's wording is careful to point out that Donovan has not been found guilty, and that the events are purported, not proved. The entry also suggests motives for falsely accusing Donovan. I think the second guideline is also currently met. Donovan is known for reasons other than this allegation. In fact, he's notable for a different crime entirely (elaborately framing his son for attempted murder). I don't consider him to be "relatively unknown" given that major publications have written about him. I'd leave the article be. --Rawlangs (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I interpret "accused are innocent until proven guilty" as something that is further explained by the second guideline. That is, since someone who has not been convicted has not been proven guilty, we should treat them as innocent (and thus not publish the accusation) until they are convicted.

If that's what it means, you can't satisfy it just by adding a statement that their guilt has not been proven. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Shais Taub

A particular user is repeatedly editing this article with malicious intent (please see history)

1. The university where Shais Taub's parents received their psychology degrees is irrelevant to Shais Taub's credibility, and the insinuation implied is libelous to both him and his parents. 2. Inserting Shais Taub's original birth name is an intrusion of privacy. Shais Taub's public career only materialized after his legal name change and that is the only name he uses. (As per Wikipedia's guidelines for BLP, information solely from public records should not be used within articles).

These issues have turned into an edit war. Please intervene. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.181.57 (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Material removed and article protected. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 07:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, FreeRangeFrog, for protecting the page. I'm curious, though, why you left in the birth name - where the only source is public records. Isn't this a privacy issue? Interestingly, the source link (Public Information, Maplewood NJ) for this information addresses it as "Also Known As" - but all current usages are Shais Taub. Additionally, the phrase "Also Known As" actually isn't a proof for his birth name! Thanks again - I'm a novice here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.181.57 (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I didn't notice that honestly, I was focused on the information about his family. That bit should go, since it references a primary source, however I can't edit the article since it's fully protected. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

OK... Once the protection expires, I can edit that info (I'll explain the reasoning on the talk page) and hopefully we won't have to go through this blocking process again. Thanks for your help, FreeRangeFrog :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.242.164 (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing to explain per se, in your summary just say that the birth name references a primary source, which is not allowed. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Todd Matthew Burns

Todd Matthew Burns currently redirects to the Todd Burns article. It has been nominated for deletion because the nominator could not find evidence that the subject's middle name is "Matthew". The sole contributor to the discussion has found indirect evidence supporting the middle name and has recommended keeping the redirect. I have relisted the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 23#Todd Matthew Burns where your comments would be appreciated. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Shaheer_Sheikh

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

in Shaheer_Sheikh wikipedia his given twitter id is real ? https://twitter.com/Shaheer_S is this id real? please tell me . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karshia (talk • contribs) 15:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia editors who respond to violations of Biography of Living Persons policy reported on this page have no reason to know whether the Twitter account mentioned is official or not. The link ostensibly to the subject's Twitter account is not a violation of policy.

Done Dwpaul ^Talk 19:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

That is a horrible answer. It is very much a BLP concern to be sure that links to personal websites or twitter accounts are verified. I have no idea in this case, but your answer is simply incorrect. --Onorem (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

How exactly would you propose that all links from Wikipedia articles to Twitter accounts be verified as authentic? Dwpaul ^Talk 19:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

And note please that I did not say a link that falsely claimed to be authentic would not be a BLP violation (nor did the editor who made the inquiry suggest that this was the case); I said a) we have no reason to know if the link here is authentic and b) the simple placement of a link to a Twitter account isn't a BLP violation. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how to verify each link. I do know that it is a BLP concern. Your previous edit summary indicated it was not. --Onorem (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

When you come up with a way, please get back to me. In the meantime, unless someone provides information that a linked Twitter account is bogus, the existence of that link cannot be considered a BLP issue, even if (as is typical) someone other than the subject placed it in the article. Nothing more sinister seemed to be at work in this case. Dwpaul ^Talk 20:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The Twitter feed is not a verified account but appears to be legitimate. According to the guideline on external links, Twitter is a link to be avoided. There doesn't seem to be any pressing reason for this to be ignored. Hack (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I removed the link. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Temporary removal of BLP violating material

Wikipedia:BLP#Balance reads ... Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content....The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

I have at Talk:Thomas_DiLorenzo#List_of_BLP_problems_in_article listed more than a dozen problems with lack of balance, WP:OR, very nasty advocacy group sourcing alleging incidents with no evidence and which the subject denies, lack of adequate replies by him from WP:RS news source, and a great deal of guilt by association.

However, at this diff one editor not only refuses to discuss even one of these more than a dozen issues, he calls my attempts to make the article comply with BLP "White wash" and demands I come up with the alternative before the questionable material is removed. Editors Users:SPECIFICO, Steeletrap and MilesMoney have reverted attempts to deal with the issues in editing existing material.

So I now believe that all the relevant material should be removed until I or other editors can properly source it and write it in the next couple days. It would be helpful if an uninvolved editor could do so.

Note that this article is under Austrian economics community sanctions and the two editors given notice which have been logged in regarding this BLP matter, per Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Community. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Carol on the BLP policy. This was last confirmed by ArbCom in the Mannning naming case: "The policy on biographies of living persons requires that non-compliant material be removed if the non-compliance cannot readily be rectified. [...] Once material about a living person has been removed on the basis of a good-faith assertion that such material is non-compliant, the policy requires that consensus be obtained prior to restoring the material. On the other side, the material can be reinserted when there is a consensus to do so, even if one or more editors oppose the material. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The situation here is that the article fully complies with BLP and Carol's objections are specious. She has no consensus for removal and no grounding in policy. Unfortunately, you made the mistake of believing her summary without seeing for yourself, so you were led astray. MilesMoney (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, it's generally very important to know that a user does not need any consensus to remove material they think violates WP:BLP. Once material has been removed by a user with sincere BLP concerns, the issues shall be discussed on the talk page and only reinserted after a discussion leads to a consensus to reinsert it. I have not adressed the underlying issue of whether there actually are BLP problems in the article, and don't think I will; I am only commenting on the process to handle disputes that involve BLP concerns. Have the specific issues recently raised by CarolMoore been adressed and discussed previously ? Regards, Iselilja (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Imagine that I disputed the notion that your President was born in Hawaii, so I removed this "BLP violation". How long should we wait to restore it? Do we need to show a consensus among multiple editors? What if this consensus is contested by my buddies? MilesMoney (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Outside opinion Carol's analysis on the talk is sound. She even suggest ways to fix some of the problems. I would support a temporary removal as she suggests.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Observation One thing that irritates me about Wikipedia is how bare conclusory statements ("Policy was violated") ("BLP violation"), bereft of any specific evidence/arguments, are considered to be valid arguments. Steeletrap (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap, didn't you bother to read the more than a dozen BLP problems listed here [[Talk:Thomas_DiLorenzo#List_of_BLP_problems_in_article. If you do not understand WP:BLP policy you should not be so aggressively editing BLPs. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

@Carolmoore: Please review my comment to you on that thread. I note that many of what you called problems are no longer in the article. Life is good. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Specifico, while the problems have been ameliorated, I find the following disturbing. At this diff, you removed Lorenzo's understanding of why he was listed on League of South website - because he had done a few previously mentioned lectures 13 years before. Your edit summary reads: (Remove BLP violation. This asserts that League of South does not update their website and posts misinformation, smearing League of South for alleged dishonesty and/or incoompetence.) To me this expresses contempt for the whole concept of BLP. DiLorenzo's understanding regarding the listing belongs in the article, in one way or another, and just leaving the implication he is a liar recently associated with it is extremely problematic. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Carol, I suggest you cease making highly charged, erroneous complaints and work on improving Coach DiLorenzo's article. Steeletrap (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, BLPN is a place to complain about lack of respect for BLP policy! Your nicking-naming him "Coach" DiLorenzo because you saw a photo of him with a whistle just a symptom of that sort of thing. Anyway, at this diff I have made an attempt to put the note about the web page in proper context and to expand upon DiLorenzo's defense. (And I hope we can avoid soapbox inferences I'm a bigot for trying to follow WP policy in a bio of a dead person, like at this diff. It's even more destructive of attempts to construct BLPs that aren't overwhelmed by extreme negative editorial bias. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Shukla, Vijai K.S. Biography

As an independent researcher knowing the career of Professor Shukla and having had scientific and technical contacts with him since 1980's I hereby confirm that the biography now published conforms his career and merits according to my knowledge. Yrjö Mälkki Dr Sci, Professor emeritus Earlier Director of Food research laboratory of the Technical Research Centre of Finland <- e-mail addr etc redacted -> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.159.126 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 24 November 2013‎

~~Wikipedia appears to have no article on a Vijai Shukla~~. As for your conformation, Wikipedia articles are based on published reliable sources - we have no need for personal testimonies, and nor would we take them into account. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Correction - it appears we do have an article on Vijai Shukla. I must have messed up my earlier search. My point still stands, personal testimonies are not required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Franklin child prostitution ring allegations

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

IP editor has been edit warring at Franklin child prostitution ring allegations to include material tangentially relevant but a clear BLP violation. It got locked for the edit war but the contentious and libelous last post was left as locked without consensus and also implies certain currently living persons are child sex molesters with no supporting evidence since the accuser was convicted of perjury for lying about being molested. See talk as an edit request has been made but hte material has not been removed despite BLP and consensus issues. --DHeyward (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I removed the edit and explained my decision on the article talk page. For the record, I was previously uninvolved with this article or any editors. WP:BLP allows for the removal without discussion. JodyB_talk 02:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks! --DHeyward (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Roger Draper

My name is Roger Draper and i would like to object to the comments made on my wiki page. It is all negative and contains no positives about my career achievements. It is all based on media articles which tend to be critical ! Please could you tell me how i can amend my wiki page in order to reflect a more balanced career history. Thankyou, Roger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.49.221 (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is ideally written with reference to reliable sources. Your entry is short, but appears to be well supported. If you have specific objections, or have a specific source you would like to see included, please list it here and we can work on improving balance and coverage. --Rawlangs (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I have however edited the contents of the persondata template to comply with policy.--ukexpat (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It felt somewhat hostile in tone, I made some small changes. If there are relible sources that discuss other aspects of your career, those could be of use in the article. You can suggest changes and sources on the articles talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Roger. It's frowned upon - and pretty counter-productive - to edit your own biography, but you are encouraged discuss the article on its "talk" page (click the "talk" tab at the top of your article). I agree, the article is very poorly weighted. If there has been coverage of neutral and positive aspects of your life and career in "reliable sources" list them on the "talk" page. You must read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, though - because only assertions supported by sources that conform to that policy will survive. If there has been very little coverage of you in "reliable sources" it may be appropriate to simply delete the article per our notability guideline ... but we can discuss that later. (I'm in Australia and should be in bed just now.)

If you need any help at all, contact me on my "talk" page. Click the "talk" link after my signature. I'll leave a note on your biography's talk page too, so you can find me easily. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Danuna Tillakaratne

Another editor created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Danuna Tillakaratne. The biography may be notable, but there are BLP concerns. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a wholly negative BLP, but not rising to the level of attack page. Hopefully they won't accept it as is. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

William M. Bulger

William M. Bulger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I'm soliciting participation at Talk:William M. Bulger#Lived next door to mob property due to the years-long lack of activity on that talk page. The issue concerns reliably sourced material about Bill Bulger living next door to property owned by associates of his brother and now-convicted crime boss Whitey Bulger.

If you'd like to participate, please do so at Talk:William M. Bulger#Lived next door to mob property. Please do not add substantive contributions here. Thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Morris Titanic

Pretty sure Morrise Titanic played for the Niagara falls Flyers not the Viagara Falls Flyers. look at the career statistic table — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.213.183 (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems to have been repeatedly vandalised - I've reverted to what looks like a good version. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yogesh Chabria

The page looks suspiciously like spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metlin (talk • contribs) 05:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Henry J. Bronchtein

Resolved

The Hollywood Reporter...Drudge Report November 25, 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.241.184 (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Source it and add it. There is no dispute ongoing to address here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

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

NFL Players

I have a question. Does playing in the NFL (National Football League of American Football in the United States) automatically confer notability? (Does this mean the biography article automatically meets the Notability Criterion for the existence of articles) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

If they've played an NFL match, then they pass WP:NGRIDIRON and are therefore notable enough. It's significantly less clear for those who haven't played an NFL match e.g. draft picks. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)