Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive147

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

Dara Wier

First few paragraphs of this article are a direct copy paste from amazon's website for the author: http://www.amazon.com/Dara-Wier/e/B001K7QXP8

It's also possible that the Amazon material is a mirror of the Wikipedia article, see also http://www.amazon.com/wiki/Dara_Wier/ref=ntt_at_bio_wiki .--ukexpat (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Marion Meade

The Diff: [[1]] Removed on the grounds of poor sources and opinion based nature of potentially libelous claims. ((Salon.com Laura Miller)(Partially sourced by user review opinion from amazon)(Editorial review from amazon) Furthermore, The New York Times sourced edit was purely based on the author's opinion, and attacked personal attributes of the subject in question, rather than reviewing the actual writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsax42 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)-- ~~hsax42~~

Since we are dealing with a review, we can expect it to express the reviewer's opinion of the writer's voice, etc. in this case more than one reviewer had pointed out that the author had made factual errors in her biographies, a legitimate criticism that potential readers might appreciate. I agree that additional, including positive, criticism is called for, but blanking the entire section is unwarranted. AshcroftIleum (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Amazon.com user opinion reviews are an insufficient source and the opinions expressed there are irrelevant. The New York Times is a reliable source, however the content of the review falls under the defamation policy of wikipedia. Please refer to the wikipedia help page for Biographies of Living Persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsax42 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"the content of the review falls under the defamation policy of wikipedia" - have you actually read that policy? just because something reflects badly upon a person (particularly professional reviews of their work) is not reason to remove it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity removed the non-professional Amazon "review" and I have changed the heading from "Criticism" > "Critique". If there are other professional reviews that give other views of the work, please feel free to add them. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

On second pass, all of the "critiques" so far appear to be focused on a specific work, so I have incorporated them all into the main body of the article where that work is covered. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Bartlett

There is a dispute as to whether Bruce Bartlett's view on the Reagan's role in US debt increase is properly interpreted in section Changes in debt by presidential terms of the article History of the United States public debt:

Bruce Bartlett, former domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush, attributes the increase in the national debt since the 1980s to the policy of "starve the beast" and an aversion for tax increases.

Sources:

We Need A Party Of Fiscal Responsibility
Starve the Beast: Just Bull, not Good Economics
Tax Cuts And 'Starving The Beast'
Economic - Another Old School Republican (Bruce Bartlett) Says Heavy Tax Cuts are Large Contributor to Deficit

My objection to including disputed sentence is that it misrepresents Bruce Bartlett's views. Sentence implies that Bartlett thinks that all three Republican presidents since the 1980s followed the policy of "starve the beast" and were agains any tax increases. But that is misrepresenting Bartlett's view. For example he says: "Liberals believe that enactment of the 1981 tax cut marked the end of Republican opposition to deficits. But in fact Reagan was much more orthodox than either they or most conservatives think. Beginning in 1982, he supported higher taxes almost every year of his presidency." [2] and in this article he also praises George H.W. Bush: "Budget experts now agree [that George H.W. Bush's budget deal] deserves much of the credit for the subsequent improvement in the deficit, which shrank from 4.7 percent of GDP in 1992 to virtual balance in 1997 and gave us budget surpluses from 1998 to 2001. Economist Robert Reischauer, director of the Congressional Budget Office when the 1990 budget deal was enacted, told me it was “the foundation upon which the surpluses of the 1998 to 2001 period were built.” [...]the elder Bush will remain the last Republican who took fiscal responsibility seriously." -- Vision Thing -- 09:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

From the first paragraph of the third listed article by Bartlett:Tax Cuts And 'Starving The Beast'

I believe that to a large extent our current budgetary problems stem from the widespread adoption of an idea by Republicans in the 1970s called 'starve the beast'. It says that the best, perhaps only, way of reducing government spending is by reducing taxes. While a plausible strategy at the time it was formulated, STB became a substitute for serious budget control efforts, reduced the political cost of deficits, encouraged fiscally irresponsible tax cutting and ultimately made both spending and deficits larger.

Not sure this is inaccurately summarized by "[Bartlett] attributes the increase in the national debt since the 1980s to the policy of 'starve the beast' and an aversion for tax increases." --LK (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Problem is that you have placed it in section "Changes in debt by presidential terms" thus implying that Bartlett talks about Republican presidents when in fact he praises G.H.W. Bush and in part Reagan for their readiness to raise taxes. -- Vision Thing -- 12:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

michael mansell

Resolved

– Poster has edited article to remove offending material CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 13:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The reference to me being mostly descended from Europeans is racist and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.139.172 (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Mario Lemieux

Article says he owns an AHL franchise as opposed to the Pittsburgh Penguins of the NHL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.222.112.250 (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Gabriel Cousens. Input requested.

There's an interesting discussion going on at Deletion Review over whether an article about a prominent raw foods advocate and spiritual teacher should be created or continue being deleted. Of note, there is a controversial section in the article which has raised questions about BLP issues. The subject also requested deletion of the prior article in an Afd. I would appreciate any thoughtful comments or criticism, especially in the area of your speciality, which is the care taken (or not taken) to approach the BLP issues in the article. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Orrin H. Pilkey

Orrin H. Pilkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2 biographies for Orrin H. Pilkey are on Wikipedia. The one with the platypus as a photo, and information related to the platypus, is incorrect and should be removed from Wikipedia. The one with Professor Pilkey's photo seems to be OK. How do we get rid of the incorrect one with all of the platypus references and photo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaches2go (talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't have two biographies if they are the same person: this is one Orrin H. Pilkey, where is the other? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there are two. There's a redirect at Orrin Pilkey -- and this does go to Orrin H. Pilkey. Additionally, the photograph was changed today, from the platypus to a picture of him. I think Beaches2go visited the page at two different times, once via the redirect, and got confused. The other issue here is that someone is trying to blank the page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It was just a vandal attack done by an IP yesterday and today (including changing the photo for a platypus), which someone else was struggling to remove and getting wrong (hence the blanking). I've reverted to the pre-vandalism version -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Vladimir_Putin

This article is patently biased. Criticism of Putin is mentioned with a dismissive tone when it is mentioned at all. Attempts by several editors to fix this problem - including marking it as POV - have been undone by a single editor, who seems intractable. As this article is featured on the front page right now, this seems like an important matter to resolve. Since discussions on the talk page have gone nowhere, I thought I should report it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robnormal (talk • contribs) 21:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah you mean it does not reflect anti-Russian propaganda, but instead sticks to the facts?--Toddy1 (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Reads like a hagiography to me.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I also agree that there are outstanding issues with this article. Compare it to Angela Merkel, for example, in both the tone and range of subjects discussed. a13ean (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Or compare it to George W. Bush - would say that the two presidents have received comparable amounts of heavy, public criticism which doesn't show when looking at their biographies.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

George W. Bush#Public image and perception and the articles under the domestic section actually have lots of criticism in them. The tone of the articles is also entirely different. a13ean (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

My point exactly. The two presidents have received similar amounts of criticism - Bushes article mentions this prominently, Putin's doesn't.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah sorry - I misunderstood your comment as saying there was not criticism in either article. a13ean (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The current version of the Putin article should be preserved, enshrined and held securely in some secret bunker, just in case Wikipedia blows up, as a historical artifact, which will allow the historians of the future, to comprehend, appreciate and understand the importance of this phenomenon here.VolunteerMarek 22:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well the article is semi-protected. Maybe we should step it up to full? Also its the first time I've seen a "in popular culture" section that is actually interesting. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think protection can accomplish anything here. Maybe had it been done five years ago. Anyway, currently, this is one of the funniest articles on Wikipedia, and mostly due to the "good faith" of pro-Putin editors. How do you solve that?VolunteerMarek 00:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That[s why it should be protected of course so it doesn't change. I was trying to take a clue from your bankvault joke.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha - in these instances where reality impersonates satire and vice versa, it's easy to get lost sometimes. Anyway, someone should redirect the Putin article to it's appropriate title: Chuck norris jokes. Or vice versa (it's easy to get lost).VolunteerMarek 03:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm definitely not going to edit the article though. In case he doesn't like what I write he'd come in his Su-27and shoot me with a tranquilizer dart like an Amur tiger.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Tank Abbott

There is no David Lee Abbott listed as a California State Wrestling Champion or medalist with that name. The only medalist with the last name of Abbot was in 1985 (Mark Abbott 1985 105 lbs., 5th place). Tank Abbott was not a CA State High School wrestling Champion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.160.218.72 (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what's true or what's not, but it wasn't sourced (fairly common in these kinds of articles, particularly inline citaitons), so I removed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Allen Stanford

Currently linked from the main page In the News section. I think that the article is accurate in its essentials, but it could use a NPOV scrub, as it currently reads more like a tabloid piece than an encyclopedia article. On my way to work; I'll address it myself in a few hours if no one has been able to look at it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Pattie Boyd

Two thirds of this BLP is dedicated to her marriages to George Harrison and Eric Clapton and contains copy like this:

"Boyd, who was nearly twenty years old in 1964, met Harrison during the filming of A Hard Day's Night, in which she was cast as a schoolgirl fan. Boyd was "semi-engaged" to boyfriend Eric Swayne, whom she had dated for about a year, and out of loyalty declined Harrison's first invitation for a date, but said that Harrison was the most beautiful man she had ever seen. One of the first things Harrison said to her was "Will you marry me?" Boyd laughed, so Harrison said, "Well, if you won't marry me, will you have dinner with me tonight?" Several days later, when Boyd was recalled for another day's work on the film, Harrison asked her out again and she accepted, having ended the relationship with Swayne. Their first date was spent at the Garrick Club (a private gentlemen's club) in Covent Garden, in the company of Brian Epstein, who managed Harrison."

Isn't this way too much detail and undue weight? Can you look at the article and comment on how much of the existing text should be removed. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems ludicrously out of place to me. Do we have to know all the sordid details? It should just say she met Harrison at point-in-time under such-and-such circumstance and they were married at such-and-such point in time. Bus stop (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Good grief, it was her life. Do you want to say she met Harrison at a bus stop? Stop this rubbish now.--andreasegde (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Gjøran Sæther

Most of the sources in this article does not provide the info it claims they do AND Gjøran Sæther is not at all known by his own name. The article should really be moved to his artist name (where he release everything) which is Proteque. Every reference to him on the web and in record stores is to Proteque not Gjøran Sæther. It is also lacking a lot of things but that should be added on the Proteque page not a Gjøran Sæther page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.178.98 (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Steve Robinson (wrestler)

Steve Robinson is not retired, he retired the JCW championship belt. He is healed and wrestling. He appeared in a match against Kongo Kong february 24th wrestling for IWA midwest. HE IS NOT RETIRED! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.44.193 (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Arnold Resnicoff

Arnold Resnicoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Hi all,

Arnold Resnicoff is semi-autobiographical and imo overlong and unduly hagiographic. If this is not an unduly harsh judgment would an experienced editor be willing to give it the wikification it needs please? Springnuts (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding links, excruciatingly, long overdetailed bio, as per usual photo overkill (yup Ronnie Reagan this time), links to help establish depth of notability. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

DePUFFED a bit (BLPs used as diaries of every speech made by a person seem to beg for a blue pencil). Cut down to seven pics or so -- I am unconvinced as to the Rabbi's major significance, and the claims of "first Jewish chaplain (in some place or ship or the like)" are overwrought I fear. Collect (talk) 12:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, only had 5 minutes to root around for "notability" earlier, didn't see much that established it, anybody want to WP:BEFORE this? Will come back to it this weekend. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Kris LaBelle

Kris LaBelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

This is a blatantly self-serving, almost entirely unsourced "promotion page" created by the subject, as he himself has taken to boasting all over social media. There is no support at all for his long list of claims of television network associations, most of which are untrue and even most of the references he does provide are to small newspaper websites where their info was gathered by interviewing him. As an active member of the comedy community in Calgary, I can attest to the fact that most of the claims on this page are blatantly false, and Mr. LaBelle doesn't fall anywhere NEAR in the notability range to be considered eligible for a wikipedia page. Furthermore, the page contains several inflamatory, unvarifiable and often blatantly silly comments (such as describing his comedy style as "a mix between Def Jam and Chuck E. Cheese") which are not only not informational, but entirely opinion-based and, in that case, completely impossible.

I considered editing the page myself, but given Mr. LaBelle's well known persistance, it would no doubt all be edited right back and, as stated before, there's next to no evidence that he is relevent enough to warrant the page to begin with, so it would be far more prudent to just have it removed all together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.48.25.58 (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The author of this page, Elsabekm (talk · contribs), has an interesting edit history. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The article has been heavily edited down but the real question is "Does this person pass Wikipedia:GNG or not?" The OP says no, I have added link above if any of you have time to check this out (possible AfD candidate). Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 12:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Boomer Castleman

Boomer's Wiki article states that he was a TX singer-songwriter. He in fact, still is - he's playing just before my band from 5-8 tonight in Austin. Please don't say was say is, as in , he IS still around. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.79.10 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Thanks. Biographies of Living Persons should have 'is...', 'is a former...', or 'is a retired', depending on circumstance. Dru of Id (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Resolved

An editor disputes my addition of mention in the lead section of Scharzenegger's son with his housekeeper, which he and the housekeeper kept secret from the boy and Scharzenegger's wife Maria Shriver for 14 years. However, Schwarzenegger's other four children with Shriver are mentioned in the lead section. 1) Very notable given Schwarzenegger's position as former Governor of California and celebrity. 2) At the very least, WP shouldn't continue the practice of "non-acknowledgement" of children born out of wedlock (in this case, mention was made only in a subsection titled "Marital separation". Please see Talk:Arnold_Schwarzenegger#"Secret son" mentioning in lead section. Thank you, Facts707 (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Without looking at the article - we don't usually mention children in the lede - the subject is not notable because he has a child with a maid - for musical distraction - see Neil Young A man needs a maid live 1971 (YouTube) - It's not illegal to have children with people and this issue seems well covered and correctly situated in the Marital separation section. Youreallycan

I did not assert that it was "illegal to have children with people", nor is it particularly notable to have a child out of wedlock for most people. However, it IS unusual and notable for a very high ranking politician to do this and further to HIDE the fact for 14 years. Also, you say that we don't usually mention children in the lede but don't comment on whether the different treatment of the five children is warranted. I would also suggest you take at least a cursory look at the lead section of the article in question before posting on a noticeboard intended to solve controversies. Otherwise, thanks for the input! Facts707 (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did take a cursory look at the lede before I commented. Youreallycan 15:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: I changed the article to remove mention of any of Schwarzenegger's children in the lead section (resolves "equality of parent's marital status" issue). For the benefit of Schwarzenegger's minor children, I'm dropping this request to add certain information in the lead section. Facts707 (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree, thats a good solution. Youreallycan 15:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Naseer Shamma

Andrew Gowers

I am the subject of the article Andrew Gowers, which contains a material inaccuracy. I attempted to correct this by removing the inaccurate statement, but a user has reinstated it. Please could you help me correct this problem. The article as currently published states that I resigned as Editor of the Financial Times after losing a libel case with Collins Stewart. This is not true in two respects, as any examination of the public record will confirm. I left the FT by mutual agreement with the owner Pearson plc in November 2005. The libel suit mentioned in the article was settled in January 2006.. It is therefore not true to say as the article does that I resigned after losing the lawsuit. I resigned before the lawsuit was settled, and the lawsuit was not lost as it did not go to court. Indeed, my resignation had nothing to do with the lawsuit.. Please delete the reference to the lawsuit from this article as it is simply misleading. Thank you. Andrew Gowers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewgowers (talk • contribs) 18:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a reasonable and correct request according to the citation. Your removal has not been reverted. Many thanks for your report. - Youreallycan 18:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Lynette Nusbacher

An editor has repeatedly been adding personal medical information to this article sourced only the The Sun, a well-known sensationalist tabloid newspaper. My explanations (in edit summaries and here) have fallen on deaf ears so it would be good if someone else could get involved. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like my response to your message has fallen on deaf ears. Your removal of content is pretty much vandalism. The information is correct, get over it... Aunty-S (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you just dont like the idea that Dr. Nusbacher is biologically a man. Here are a few examples of Transgender politicians and comedians where reference is made to their sex change in the article - Enza Anderson, Jamie Lee Hamilton, Vladimir Luxuria, Bethany Black, Ian Harvie. Aunty-S (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, hang on -- if this person did undergo sex reassignment surgery then "biologically a man" is incorrect. In general I don't think we ought to worry about situations where someone has done this openly and has freely spoken about it e.g. to reporters. But that's clearly not the case here: the article in the Sun makes it clear that she considers it a private matter, and I think we should keep it that way particularly given that it has been covered only in the Sun (I've checked). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems a bit personally intrusive to me. I support removal under BLP privacy - We can and should have more encyclopedic standards than tabloid newspapers such as the Sun. - Youreallycan 21:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to check back here. There should at least be 1 reference made, I personally found it confusing when looking up "Dr. Nusbacher" after watching a documentary she was in, and only finding an article on Lyndette, not Aryeh Nusbacher. And also in this documentary, Nusbacher was quite clearly a man. Took me a while to realise it was the same person. Btw, Sex Reassignment Surgery is cosmetic only, Nusbacher is still biologically male. Aunty-S (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries, thanks - Is it notable, or part of the reason he is notable? - if not its just personally intrusive - has he commented about any of this? Youreallycan 21:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the article as it stands is a little problematic - there is nothing to indicate that Nusbacher was born anatomically male, and became notable before the sex-change. While we clearly shouldn't give undue emphasis to this, it seems a salient point, and probably merits some mention, given that readers looking for Aryeh Nusbacher, and unaware of her present circumstances, are likely to be rather confused. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

We have the redirect, so they will find their way to the article if searching for Aryeh Nusbacher and it says in the lede , formally known as .. so we have the detail - apart from pointing out the change in the name from a male name to a female name its all there. Youreallycan 21:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) The former name redirects to the current name, and mention is made in the article of the change of name. Surely that's enough to avoid confusion? The reason for the change of name is irrelevant to the notability of the subject, and we have no reliable sources for that reason. And why this obsession with anatomy? Why should a military historian's genitals be any more relevant to an encyclopedia article than her pineal gland? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what percentage of our readers will be aware that Aryeh is a male name, and may well have seen the subject 'as a male' on television etc. Sadly, like it or not, society in general 'does' have an obsession with genitals, or at least with classifying individuals as male or female. As I said, this is a difficult issue, and I'm not sure what the answer is - but we do need to cater for the legitimate concerns of our readers, and an article that confuses them is hardly helpful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Since when do you care about the "confusion" of readers over the privacy of BLP subjects? The one reference we have on this issue makes it perfectly clear that this person prefers to treat the issue as private. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Content is supported by reliable sources. The person in question is blatantly transgender. There is nothing sinister about it and so far this fact is not challenged by sources. At the very least the person's birth name needs a mention and the appropriate category should be listed. Wikifan^{Be nice} 11:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

What reliable sources support this content? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The countless documentaries that Nusbacher appears in as male are reliable sources. I think we should compromise and make reference to Lynette's former name at least, someone has recently removed her former name from the article entirely. (Green Halcyon here, and probably shouldnt be, account is blocked for 24 hours)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.242.24 (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The former name is in fact mentioned twice in the article, clearly linking the subject's publications and TV documentaries under that name. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but why was it removed from the opening sentence and info box. People searching for "Aryeh Nusbacher" are likely to miss it anywhere else in the article. Here's a link to IMDB stating that Nusbacher's birth name, it was removed by an editor claiming that "Aryeh" was incorrect (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1655167/). (Green Halcyon Sock Puppet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.242.24 (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning that the subject underwent sex reassignment is perhaps too private a matter to include in the article. Though I agree that there should at least be a mention of her former name in the infobox. The subject is far more well known under the name "Aryeh Nusbacher". And if that IMDB link mentions it, why shouldnt wikipedia? IrishLad1916 (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need to approach the topic this way as a general rule. Some people become transsexuals and are perfectly happy discussing it openly. It's very clear in this case that Nusbacher doesn't want to discuss it openly -- again, the sources show that she considers it quite private. Combine that with the fact that we only have one tabloid newspaper reporting on it, and I think it's clear what our approach should be here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

But there is nothing private about mentioning that her former name was Aryeh, where its mentioned in the article could easily be confused for a pseudonym IrishLad1916 (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

"What reliable sources support this content?" Princes' war tutor sex swap. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The Sun is known for many things, but reliability is not among them. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Has it been declared a non-RS? Wikifan^{Be nice} 16:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Its just common sense interpretation of WP:BLP that we don't support contentious content about living people cited only to redtops such as the Sun and the Mail or the Mirror. Youreallycan 18:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if we were to believe what The Sun writes it doesn't support the content that was in the article, qualifying the relevant statement with "is believed to" and not attributing that belief to anyone. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Biljana Srbljanović

Several serbian tabloids (Kurir, Alo! and telegraf.rs) reported that she was caught while buying cocaine. No serious (not tabloid) newspaper or television confirmed those reports. Srbljanović later denied all this, claiming that she is victim of two tabloids. It is worth noting that Biljana Srbljanović is active in political life, and that elections will soon be held in Serbia, so this could be part of the election campaign of her opponents (Serbian right wing nationalists).

The IP editors for days are entering these tabloid allegations as proven fact. The current controversies section is about 50% of the article, maybe more. Every tabloid article is now in the controversies section, and some of the text in that section is unsourced. Please, will someone experienced look in this article. Thanks.--В и к и T 18:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit - its difficult investigating using google translate of Serbian articles - I am still not totally happy with the coke allegation section ... he she been charged? Youreallycan 20:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That tabloids claim that she was arrested and that she has been charged, but she denies being arrested at all. The first tabloid who published the information is Alo! (I think this article is first), and the others only quoted Alo!. Alo! claims that they have "unnamed source" in the police and that their journalist read the police report (provided by that "unnamed source"). On the other hand, she denied that she was arrested by using humorous and sarcastic language and claims that it is part of election campaign. It is impossible to confirm whether the allegations are true, no police spokesperson neither confirmed nor denied what was written in those articles.--В и к и T 21:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I edited it a little more and attributed the claim to the tabloid - leaving a simple statement attributed to the source - I will watch the article - I have no objection to its total removal until a conviction is reported ??? - Youreallycan 22:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that attribution is sufficient, no need for total removal. Perhaps should be added that she denied that she was arrested and linked that to the election campaign.[3] Thanks for help, but I'm sure IP editors will come back :)--В и к и T 22:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not getting a good translation from that citation - It would be good to add something like, Srbljanović denies the allegation.[1] - if that is citable? I will keep an eye on the article for any future edits that violate NPOV. Youreallycan 09:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I added something that can be cited. I hope that's okay. She stated that "elections have started", and then made some sarcastic, hard to translate, comments.--В и к и T 15:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Patrick McGorry

Re Patrick McGorry I have just discovered that this page now contains inaccuracies about me personally in two respects. Firstly I have not advocated for the use of antipsychotics in pre-psychotic psychosis. In fact I have carried out research that has shown that these medications are NOT required in this stage of illness and have led the authorship of clinical practice guidelines whcih have stated for many years that such medications should not be used in this stage. The question of how to treat such patients remains in clinical equipoise and hence research is ethically still valid to clarify the sequence of treatments in the early stages of psychosis. Obviously risk/benefit considerations which critics are concerned about must be the central guide to the use of any interventions. The second issue relates to the case of Geoff Stuart which focused on his role in research which was led by colleagues at the University of Melbourne and in which I was involved as one only of the investigators. It is hardly a controversy from my point of view since the allegations that Dr Stuart made in respect of myself were not upheld and as the entry correctly reports I was fully vindicated and in fact cleared of any misconduct. I therefore regard it as inappropriate to say the least that this entry has been included and wonder who is responsible for its addition and what relationships and conflicts of interest they may have. These two errors go the issue of reputation and I would like them corrected immediately. Patrick McGorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmcgorry (talk • contribs) 11:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you about the Stuart allegations. It's accusations, an investigation, and no official charges. Therefore, I've removed it, although some here may disagree with the removal because it was reported in reliable sources (this is often a contentious issue here). We'll see. As for the advocacy of antipsychotics, I've left that alone because it's sourced to journals I can't see. If you have something that contradicts the sources, or shows that the material is not compliant with the sources, that would be helpful. I've also removed the section header (Controversies). For such a short article, it's WP:UNDUE.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ali Paya

To whom it may concern Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to let you know that your recent revised entry on Ali Paya contains many factual errors and is written in a way which deliberately disseminates misinformation about him. While your earlier entry on Professor Paya was brief and not very informative it did not contain inaccurate and malicious information. The recent entry, in contrast, seems to have been written with the aim of portraying him in a particularly negative light.

Below is a list of some of the inaccurate details which can be found in your recent entry:

Professor Paya, contrary to what is stated in the recent entry, is first and foremost a philosopher and scholar and not a translator and writer. You can simply check this fact by a quick google search on him. In his capacity as a philosopher and academic scholar he has produced several books and more than 50 scholarly papers in both Persian and English. Some of his papers are translated into German and Arabic.

In your recent entry on Professor Paya the following titles are mentioned among Professor Paya’s books and/or papers published in anthologies: Models of Explanation (2003), Islam and Political Order: Muslim Reflections on Democracy, Secularism and Law (2003). However, Professor Paya has not published any book with the title of Models of Explanation. Moreover, there is no anthology entitled Islam and Political Order: Muslim Reflections on Democracy, Secularism and Law.

The claim about alleged plagiarism was part of a calculated smearing campaign to discredit Professor Paya. Fardin Jahanbin is a pseudonym. Moreover, Professor Paya in his reply to the alleged claim clearly demonstrated that the claim is factually false and baseless. Surprisingly, in your recent entry there is no link to Professor Paya’s rebuttal. The only link is to the original claim by ‘Jahanbin’.

The following is a more accurate biography of Professor Ali Paya which could be used to replace the existing inaccurate entry in Wikipedia:

Professor Ali Paya is a contemporary Iranian philosopher and scholar. He has studied in Sharif University of Technology (Electronics), University of Tehran (Philosophy), University of London (Philosophy of Science) and has obtained his PhD from the University College London. He is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the National Research Institute for Science Policy (NRISP) in Iran and Senior Visiting Research Fellow at the Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Westminster in the UK.

Professor Paya has published many books as well as scholarly papers in national and international academic journals and anthologies in both Persian and English. Some of his papers are translated into Arabic and German.

His most recent and forthcoming books and papers include: Analytic Philosophy and Philosophical Analysis: Problems, Prospects and Applications (2012) (In two volumes. The first volume of this book was the winner of the title of best philosophical book of the year 2005 in Iran); Habermas and Iranian Intellectuals, (with M. Ghaneirad, 2012), Socio-Ethical Consequences of Convergent Technologies (with R. Kalantarinezhad, 2011); Iraq, Democracy, and the Future of Muslim World (with John Esposito, Routledge, 2011); Technology, Culture and Ethics (2009); “How indigenous are ‘indigenous sciences’? The Case of ‘Islamic Sciences’”, in Asia, Europe, and the Emergence of Modern Science: Knowledge Crossing Boundaries (Palgrave, 2012); “The Misguided Conception of Objectivity in Humanities and Social Sciences”, in The Crisis of the Human Sciences False Objectivity and the Decline of Creativity (2011); and “Futures Studies in Iran: Learning through Trial and Error” (With H. Shoraka, 2010). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hesamuddin (talk • contribs) 14:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This bio has been at AFD for a few days and needs assistance / reliable citations and or an expert in the area if it is going to survive. Youreallycan 16:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Paya (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Charles Krauthammer M.D.

I found a minor error in the biography of physician and political commentator Dr Charles Krauthammer. The bio gives the impression that Krauthammer no longer practices psychiatry. In fact, he maintains a medical office and is a fully licensed physician in the District of Columbia, where his office is located.

My source is the records of the DC Board of Medical Registration.

The Very Rev. Daniel Beegan, D.Min. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriarDaniel (talk • contribs) 14:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't normally cite to primary sources. However, the statement that he "quit" psychiatry was unsourced, so I removed the phrase.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Brother Stair

There is alot of "smear campaigning" stuff in this article, please remove all of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brother77 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC) — Brother77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You've vandalized the article; then, you removed huge hunks of properly-sourced information without an explanation. I see no evidence of a "smear campaign" going on. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Connie Francis

Resolved

– It's Stevens.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The photo to the upper right of this article is not of Connie Francis, but of Connie Stevens. Should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSlibraryghost (talk • contribs) 22:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea who it is, but it has copyright problems, so I reverted back to the previous image.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought there was a copyright problem, but it was actually a Flickr problem. In any event, as User:January noted on the Francis Talk page, the picture was mistakenly labeled as being Connie Francis, when it was in fact Connie Stevens, and it has been renamed. It is still awaiting review for copyright, but the who's-picture-is-it confusion has been resolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hani Al-Mazeedi

This is a clear vanity page and they are even using it to announce future public events and conferences. None of this is newsworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.9.119 (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is one of the biggest messes I've seen reported on this board, and that is saying quite a bit. The article has been around a while, but someone needs to take a machete and fix it. All I've done is tag it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I slashed it and was fixing to slash it some more, but in between, it has been nominated for speedy deletion, so I'll wait the outcome before doing any more work.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

South Ronaldsay child abuse scandal

The following link is an outdated and untrue reflection of my character and my family. Please could someone help in the removl of this information.South Ronaldsay child abuse scandal - Wikipedia, the free ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ronaldsay_child_abuse_scandalCached - Similar You +1'd this publicly. Undo May Willsher, one of the children from "family W", later said: ... In September 2006 it was announced that May Willsher, who had been 8 years old when she was ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue54321 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

In describing the information as "untrue", do you perhaps mean something like "true, but I'd rather keep it under wraps"? If not, it would help to know which angle you consider to be untrue: the claims of the social worker, or the claims about the social worker. It won't do to delete the whole thing as you have attempted to do -- there is some pretty good documentation here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I rather think the "article" is entrely too full of opinions, and should be reduced to its gist. Collect (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that, it needs a little bit of improvement work thats for sure. - Youreallycan 16:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Nazir Ahmad (murderer)

Resolved

– Deleted. Repost if recreated. JFHJr (㊟) 23:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone has moved this page from Nazir Ahmad (Burewala resident) to Nazir Ahmad (murderer). As noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazir Ahmad (Burewala resident), this is problematic from a BLP standpoint (reliable sources haven't reported that he was convicted of murder). The move should be reverted, and the page move protected. Andjam (talk) 12:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This really isn't a forum for requesting administrative intervention. That said, the user who moved the page was an admin, User:Necrothesp. The question is whether, per WP:MOVE, Necrothesp should have listed the article at WP:RM because it was "controversial" or because it "would benefit from wider community input". I note you have not challenged the move on the article Talk page. I think that might be the best place to start. It's possible that Necrothesp will revert the move based on a challenge and await a consensus for the new name.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that this article passes WP:BLP1E. I'm thinking deletion is an appropriate couse of action. Kevin (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion Kevin (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Given that of the three sources cited, the only link that still works states that Ahmad 'allegedly' carried out these acts, the name change seems grossly inappropriate - but the article needs speedy deletion anyway, per WP:BLP1E etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

While I am neutral as to the man's notability, I think it is frankly laughable to object to my name change given that a quick search on Google will reveal several articles from respectable news sources showing that this man not only freely admitted to being a murderer but apparently thought his killings were entirely justified (e.g. this one from Associated Press, which does not use the word "allegedly" once). In my opinion, refusing to acknowledge this fact and going so far as to blank the AfD page to (misguidedly and rather patronisingly, considering he seems to be proud of what he did) protect the feelings of an admitted murderer simply make Wikipedia into a laughing stock. The outrage expressed by a couple of editors in the AfD to calling an obvious and self-confessed (and acknowledged as such by media organisations) murderer a murderer would have made me laugh out loud were it not so tragically politically correct. I did not move the article to prove some point or because I had any particular interest in it (it was merely an article I happened to come across), but because the previous name, Nazir Ahmad (Burewala resident), was pretty meaningless and next to useless as a disambiguator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

several articles from respectable news sources, I can't find a single one, and your RS is a blog hosting an article purported to be from the Associated Press. There is nothing politically correct about the page blanking or the comments at the AfD, just respecting WP BLP. Anyway, all that is beside the point, it was deleted as a poorly sourced BLP violation. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 00:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake, you'll find that article and larger versions in numerous places if you actually bothered to look. If you and others don't think that trying to protect the identity of a self-confessed murderer who's proud of what he did and whose story is plastered all over the internet is politically correct and lacking in a certain amount of common sense then, well I'll just leave it there and let others decide... It's not "beside the point" at all, since the initial post here was respecting the name change, which is what I'm commenting on. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Rinat Akhmetov

Rinat Akhmetov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Looks to be a headache in the making; just about every paragraph has some accusation of criminal activity - and it is littered with dubious sourcing and what looks like OR (or some sort of soap boxing). I'm not going to have time to work on this but it needs an urgent clean up! --Errant ^(chat!) 17:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is the subject of non-stop POV pushing by one or both of the two editors who are most active on it. I'm not clear on which of them is more deserving of a topic-ban: a cursory look suggests that one wants to fill up the article with accusations of criminality, while the other wants to whitewash it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It definitely deserves a closer look than I have given it so far. Jesanj (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm just repeating what's in the sources - which as far as I can tell, are reliable. If things seem POVy or anything of the like, I'm more than happy to talk things out and get some consensus going on tone. The disputes have so far been more about the other user removing sources without much explanation than on wording or presentation. --Львівське (говорити) 05:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The article appears to admit that many apparently reliable sources have published allegations of criminality against Renat Akhmetov, and since published retractions as the accusations were found to be false. Has the editor who added the accusations from apparently reliable sources verified that no retractions were since published?

Not that I am aware of. I think if something was retracted, Orekhova would have seen it by now (since that's her thing)--Львівське (говорити) 15:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

On a separate issue, his first name is spelled Renat in his native Donetsk. Surely we should use that spelling.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't really get your passage about retractions... Renat is just another form of the name, I don't think we should change just because this spelling is wide spread in Donetsk. --Orekhova (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It's "Rinat" in both Ukrainian and Russian, never seen 'Renat' used in English or in any publications...--Львівське (говорити) 15:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if this should be put here and if I did it at the right time but I started yesterday an discussion on the talkpage of the article in which I advice to restructure the article. I think a restruction (as I have in mind) should solve most "neutrality" content issues.... Hope I am not making things more complicated now.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Harrison Ford

There is an issue over on the Harrison Ford article. An editor is insisting that Harrison Ford is Jewish and is repeatedly adding the article to the category "Jewish Actors". Harrison Ford has some Jewish ancestry on his mother's side, though his father was Irish Catholic. Harrison Ford himself has never publicly stated he follows any religion or confirmed he follows a Jewish lifestyle or Jewish customs in any way. In a TV interview (Inside The Actors Studio 2.40 mins in), he did make a humorous comment relating to his ancestry when asked if his mixed family background ever influenced him as a person and as an artist. He said that "as a man I always felt Irish, as an actor I always felt Jewish". He was laughing as he said it and the audience applauded him for making such a funny and clever answer, though it is no indication to mean that he actually is Jewish. It is certainly correct to include Harrison Ford in the "Americans of Jewish Descent" category because that is factually accurate and can be proven, but to actually state he is Jewish when he has never confirmed it himself is clearly a violation of WP:BLP because it is making assertions about his personal beliefs and lifestyle that he himself has never actually publicly confirmed. Kookoo Star (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there an independent reliable source that states he is Jewish? If not, we can stop right there. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge, no there isn't. There are plenty that mention his Jewish ancestry, but I can't find any quality sources in which he clearly states he is Jewish himself, nor can I find anything in the various biographies I've read about him. This category was added to the article based solely on the funny comment Ford made in the interview mentioned above. To me that does not count as a reliable source because the comment was clearly made in jest. It's like when James Cameron famously said he "felt like king of the world" at the Oscars. It doesn't mean he literally is. Kookoo Star (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

In that case, no. If there is no source saying that he is Jewish, then neither do we say explicitly in the article or implicitly by categorisation or listing, that he is Jewish. Cusop Dingle (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

We have an independent source saying that Harrison Ford is Jewish: "Asked if Calista has converted to Judaism, Harrison, who's Jewish, replied, Not yet, but I'm working on it." And we have "self-identification" in the above-mentioned video. The interviewer, James Lipton asks: "Do you feel that in any way those confluences have influenced you, as a person, as an artist?" Harrison Ford answers: "As a man I've always felt Irish, as an actor I've always felt Jewish." Bus stop (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

What does that even mean? I've always felt like the king of the gypsies, that doesn't mean I should be categorized as such.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Maunus—people don't commonly enunciate statements such as some here are demanding. People speak in the language conducive to supplying information to satisfy the multiplicity of demands as are normally found in human dialogue. There is a quite different setting in which in formal proceedings in some legalistic setting a person may be confronted with a question that they must answer in clear and stark terms. If a person was applying for citizenship it is not out of the question that a blunt question and answer would be necessary. Or in a court of law there could be the case that a question could be posed that must be answered very clearly and very starkly. But in normal conversation there are many considerations in flux at once. Harrison Ford is probably also interested in sharing with the interviewer and the audience his self perception on the stage and off the stage. This is normal and we do not have to demand that a person state in the starkest terms that they are Jewish to satisfy our requirement for "self-identification" for WP:Categorization as a Jew. All of the available sources are confirming that Harrison Ford is Jewish and no source is being presented that he might not be Jewish. WP:BLP is being satisfied with the factors at hand. Bus stop (talk)

Here's another jew you can tag and be in compliance with BLP. Oh and every actor that has ever played Shylock have uttered the words "I am a Jew" on stage, thus presumably making them equally jewish to Harrison Ford who by his statement is a Jew on stage and irish off it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Bus stop seems to be misquoting the source: what it actually says is "Asked if Calista has converted to Judaism, Harrison, who?s Jewish, replied, ?Not yet, but I?m working on it.?" I think that the liberal scattering of superfluous '?'s throughout the article say something regarding the journalistic standards of the source. In any case, the article tells us "The actor dished his noted dry humor at this interview. Asked whom he trusts among the network evening news anchors, Harrison answered, ?I still trust Walter Cronkite, even more since he?s been dead. The dead people are the most trustworthy". Ford was joking with his interviewer throughout the interview, and I see no reason why we should take his assertion that he is a Jewish actor while he's an Irishman any more seriously than we should take his assertions regarding dead newsreaders. This misuse of a questionable source for the purposes of ethnotagging, followed by endless debates over semantics, is one of the more objectionable habits of many contributors who should know better. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and that is why we have articles about actors. Harrison Ford is an actor, and that is why we have an article about him. Wikipedia is not an ethnoreligious database. Wikipedia is not a court of law. It is not our job to decide who we label as 'Jewish actors'. It is not our job to label people at all. I suggest that those who think otherwise should find some other forum for their questionable hobby. (And please note, I'm sure that Bus stop will wish to respond in his usual manner at this point, by cherry-picking some phrase from what I've just written, twisting the words to mean something else entirely, and demanding evidence to support something I've not said. If he does this, I have no intention of responding) AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The interviewer asks a compound question. The interviewer asks Ford to comment on two factors in two realms of his life. The two factors are Jewish-ness and Irish-ness. The two realms of life are "as a person" and "as an artist". Two ideas are addressed by Ford simultaneously resulting in the reply: "As a man I've always felt Irish, as an actor I've always felt Jewish". The above is normal, casual conversation. I think singleminded statements are rare. People don't speak that way, partly because there are assumptions in place even before a question is asked. The interviewer is trying to get the interviewee to be loquacious and to do so in an interesting way. Interviewers don't ask singleminded questions because in fact they don't want one word answers. The aim of a good interviewer is to cause the person being interviewed to reveal an interesting thought. The above is far more interesting than its components. The interviewer, James Lipton, an accomplished actor himself, in the above causes Harrison Ford to shed light not only on whether or not he is Irish or whether or not he is Jewish, but how he sees these attributes expressing themselves on the stage and off the stage. This sheds light on the man as an actor which is of course the reason for his celebrity in the first place. Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Geoffrey O'Brien

According to the article, Geoffrey O'Brien was "savagely beaten" by police in November, 2011. This is not merely contentious, it's transparently false and libellous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.99.94 (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems to have been an opinion blog piece about the rib - where does it hurt mate, in the ribs ... there is of course no reliable support that he was savagely beaten by the police - Youreallycan 19:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Setti Warren, Mayoral campaign, 2009

Piece of text was inserted with inaccurate information that was not substantiated by the article that it referenced. Therefore, it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turtleman70 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Biased language & misrepresentation of a quotation in this article pertaining to what was said was once again posted in this section - and once again removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turtleman70 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Germán Trejo

We've got one of the article subject's college buddies trying to whitewash the article to replace information about bankruptcy proceedings with a list of all his various volunteer gigs and awards, most of which are, of course, uncited or insufficiently cited. See here, here, and here.

I'm just hoping I can get some more eyes on the article to keep the snowjob from staying active too long whenever it goes up next. Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I am unsure of his notability utterly -- anyone wish to put it up for AfD? Collect (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The three sources other than the one from Ohio University do seem to dwell on him quite centrally. The only question would be whether the coverage is too "local" to qualify him for notability. I'm worried that any AfD would inevitably result in a "He's covered in more than 2 source, thus meets WP:GNG, thus notable."

I will watchlist the article though, in case anyone decides to whitewash it again. Heck, it could probably use more negative coverage of Trejo, given how those articles have some pretty strong claims about him even before his "venture" failed. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Bar-Kays

Hello!! I am very disappointed you left out an important band member and SONG WRITER for many of the Bar-Kays songs - Charles, "Scoop" Allen, who just passed away on 3/9/12. He is MY brother in law, married to my sister. He was the trumpet player on MANY of their albums and I am frankly offended that you left him out considering he is on most of their albums in the 70s. I spoke to Lloyd yesterday as well, who called to extend his condolences and find out when the services are. Please go and do your research and add all the contributions that Scoop did for this band! Thank you, Yvonne LaCour

see my FB page - Yvonne Couty LaCour where you will see info on Charles' passing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creolewoman (talk • contribs) 02:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your loss. Is Allen listed in the album covers or in other sources as being a band member or song writer? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This may be helpful to a point: According to Allmusic, Allen was in the band 1971-1983[4] and he is listed as a songwriter on a number of the listed songs[5][6].--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Charlene M. Proctor: request for help completing WP:BEFORE.

Resolved

– Deleted at AfD. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 12:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlene M. Proctor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

From what I have looked into, this article's

content reads (from a quick skim) like advertising or a resume,
history shows that most of the editors (outside bots) of this article are dedicated editors (is there a WP term for this?) who didn't work on any other article, and

This is known as Single Purpose Account (or SPA) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

notability might be lacking, which I bring up partially because of its status as an orphan and partially from a very quick online search about her Goddess Network project.

I can't take this any further down the WP:BEFORE due to limitations from a chronic illness (I'm behind on my own user talk page, but I keep finding edits while idly browsing!) so would someone see if attention to the Proctor article is warranted? I couldn't do anything thorough because my eye muscles...ah, that's a long story AND I've already explained I'm limited.

Uh, to re-focus on the point while trying be fair all around, I only did a little bit of skimming in these areas, however I did find potential problems things quickly, and I likely won't be able to find my way back here in a timely fashion. So, please take this completely over for me & from me if you think it is needful.

Thanks in advance, --Geekdiva (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Pure puff and advertising - or almost so. Collect (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Have cleaned up it up some more, WP:BEFORE, and now nommed for deletion, see link above. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Casey Hudson

Resolved

– Page protected. JFHJr (㊟) 23:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

this article has been recently repeatedly vandalized and might need a temporary lock on editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.128.144.182 (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The article appears to have been protected. If you notice further problems with vandalism, the place to post a protection request is at WP:RPP. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 23:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Erick Lindgren

Numerous edits made to an article all based on self-published/anon comments made on a forum thread. While other sources have repeated the extremly contentious information, their source for the information is that forum thread - which continually used as a "reference" in this article. 2005 (talk) 07:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how journalists[7][8] quoting the public online speech of well known individuals somehow invalidates their reliability. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

And, by the way, you edit way too many poker related articles to convincingly play the fool here, 2005. I can't imagine that you don't know who Haralabos Voulgaris is or that Two Plus Two's poker forums aren't just something randomly found on the internet. Maybe you hadn't noticed that Lindgren's good friend, Kid Poker, has also weighed in on this matter?[9] Sure, you might be able to bring a few WP:BLP/N janitors to your side for a little while, but you are kind of WP:GAME'ing the system here, imo. I don't mind assuming good faith that you are merely just not on top of this breaking situation. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Not only are you NOT assuming good faith, you seem to be making a personal attack: not at all appropriate for this forum, or anywhere on WP, imho. I have less than zero interest in poker, but civility is another issue.

Ragityman,69.171.187.87 (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who chose to elevate this matter so as to make it an administrative concern. But since User:2005 decided to do so, I feel it is only right for any random admins passing by to have certain relevant facts at their disposal, as they are unlikely to be experts in the field (poker) that 2005 and I both frequently edit in (per WP:SPADE). -- Kendrick7^talk 08:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Would you please just stop this and read the BLP guideline. It doesn't matter what an "expert" says. BLPs do not allow contentious expert opinion in BLPs. BLPs never allow forum threads to be used as sources, or allow for trying to backdoor the rules here by also linking to another site that merely says "somebody on this forum accused a person of something." If a reliable source states via their own research that something is true, then we can post that. But the contentious accusations of one or two individuals in forum threads or blog posts is completely not acceptable here. And I posted this here because you were ignoring both another editor and myself despite having been pointing the wiki rule that unambiguously says the content you added is never acceptable in a BLP. 2005 (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

For the record, there was no "another editor"; you've been the only person reverting me.[10] There was another editor who removed poorly sourced material from an anon mixed in with vandalism and got the page semi-protected. Only after he came on Two Plus Two's forums to brag about silver-locking the page[11], did I come along to do a partial restore and add a proper ref. ;) -- Kendrick7^talk 01:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Since when are we hypercritical of what reliable secondary sources use as their primary sources? You can't just assume out of hand that Poker News did no due diligence here. And the idea that a professional gambler who lost a $3 million dollar a year endorsement deal now can't pay off his bets isn't exactly a "contentious" one. It's akin to "coal miner gets trapped in a coal mine" -- gamblers go broke all the time, it doesn't require some huge suspension of disbelief. More reliable sources on this are just going to keep popping up,[12] so you are racing the tide here. -- Kendrick7^talk 21:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I would leave it out for now. --Mollskman (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Solid advice from a 7 week long editor. ;) Do I have to wait for only the English tide? I've only got sources about the matter in Italian, French, and German. It's not like this is some huge international incident or anything! -- Kendrick7^talk 03:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Your secondaty sources just repeat what the forum thread said. They clearly state that. And your inclusion of the thread itself is completely out of line. And please delete the links you posted above. Read the top of this page: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Just because lots of people repeat gossip doesn't make it anything but gossip. No matter how many places repeat the gossip from that forum thread, in no matter how many languages, the information violates the explicit language of the BLP guideline. (Also, what you consider a reliable source is not what the Wikipedia does.) This is not "some huge international incident or anything" so drop it please. 2005 (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Kendrick, I am a random admin who also happens to be active in the WP:POKER project. So, I know a little about the sources/issues you are addressing. 2005 and I, typically disagree on a lot of issues. But right now, the inclusion of this information in the article IS a violation of BLP. The news sources are not stating the Edog actually owes the money, they are covering the flap and the constroversy sparked by a few people. Thus, even though they are covering the 2+2 forum hubbub, it fails to meet our criteria for BLP. 2005 has the right of it... in order to include this info, we would need a reliable source that says that Edog does in fact owe this money and doesn't repay his debts in a timely manner. Not a news report that is reporting on some forum posters allegations. Controversial material has a high threshold. (Note: 2005 can, per BLP, keep reverting your edits indefinitely. Continual inclusion of the material, however, will result in your being blocked for violating wp:3rr.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, there's no such thing as a reliable source that says Lindgren, or anyone else for that matter, owes people money and can't pay, because it's always just hearsay? I think that's a tad extreme. Or else are you insisting there's some fundamental difference between a reporter investigating someones debt problems and getting a dozen interviews saying someone isn't pay their debts, and a reporter reporting on a dozen people who have come together in a public place to complain that someone isn't paying their debts? I'm having a hard time understanding the distinction. Nevertheless, I presume you have no problem with the inclusion of Lindgren owing $3,6 million to the IRS, as it is a matter of public record. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not what we are saying. If a reliable source comes out and puts their name to the issue, then we can follow their lead. But the source has to do more due dilligence than a simple forum discussion/interviews with limited segments of said discussion. Right now, they are covering the issue as a flare up on 2+2, where Edog's reputation is being challenged. That is hearsay. When sources start coming back having vetted the issue, then it starts to gain credence. Remember, controversial information has to have a high level of confidence in the source. If an IRS debt is public and well documented, then sure it can be included... but it has to be a reliable source.

As for your question on my talk page about people considering entering into a verbal contract with Edog... that's not our own role. We are NOT equifax/intellicheck/etc. People should not come to us looking for advice on whether or not somebody is a credit risk.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 08:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Another way to think of it. Suppose Edog has failed to pay 5 people gambling debts in a manner in which they felt he should have. One of those 5 people goes onto a free relatively uncensored forum and slams Edog. The other 5 people he's jilted follow suit. Suddenly those six people have created a stir that gets coverage from some online magazines---coverage of the flairup.

What the flare up doesn't cover are the 500 or so other people to whom Edog has owed money and paid off in a timely manner. They are not in the flare-up. Coverage based upon this incident is thus very unreliable. Now, if a respected magazine goes out, and uses this article as a starting point. Interviews the people involved, interviews Daniel and other pros who cooborate the allegation, and perhaps even Edog himself, then it might be worthy of inclusion. But based off of an online flare up? No, we need more to include here.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Nah, your argument is pretty much idiotic, given our role as an encyclopedia. Professional gambler goes broke is hardly controversial. As such I am reverting 2005's last edit. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Refering to a well reasoned explanation as "idiotic" may sum up your approach to this, but you still aren't putting gossip in a forum thread into the Wikipedia, no matter how earth-shatteringly important you think this is for whatever reason. 2005 (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

A huge number of poker players have received some kind of loans that are still outstanding. Some are heavily in debt. I don't know how any of it could be properly sourced, and besides that, I don't know why Wikipedia should be concerned with it anyway. --SubSeven (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Tokyo Two

Tokyo Two (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Are articles in the category "Enumerated defendants" considered to be "Biographies of Living Persons" if the defendants are still alive? This would seem to be the case, but most of the articles in this category are not labelled as BLPs. This came up in the course of a talk page dispute over whether or not the Tokyo Two are notable, if the name of the article is appropriate, and whether it qualifies as a BLP. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo misrepresents or misunderstands the fundamental question of the article. I had indicated an intention to start an RfC today, but this noticeboard is just as well. My argument is that, now that a bit of time has passed since the event described in Tokyo Two, it is clear to me that the article cannot be BLP, because, if it is, it violates WP:BLP1E. As written now, it is nominally about 2 people (who some in the English press have labelled the "Tokyo Two") who committed what they and Greenpeace call a form of activism to bring to light corruption in the Japanese whaling industry, and what the Japanese courts ruled was basically just theft (with the subjects sentenced as such). In my opinion, their actions do not rise to the level to meet WP:CRIMINAL, and thus they (as living people) should not have an article about them. The event, however, is sufficiently notable that an article should exist; thus, the article should be retitled to be about the event, recategorized so that its not a BLP, and re-written so that the focus is on the crime, the trial, and the international reaction, not on the 2 people. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you both please clarify what you mean by 'being a BLP'? As far as I'm aware, this makes no difference, in as much as WP:BLP policy applies to all articles (and talkspace too, for that matter), regardless of any particular categorisation of a particular topic. How will such categorisation make any difference? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

My interest in the BLP issue is simply whether articles about living "enumerated defendants" should have the "living persons" category tag. I don't think the article should be renamed or deleted for reasons I've enumerated on the article talk page. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy, it is correct that BLP applies everywhere, but the notability requirements for people and for events are different. We even have the special rule WP:BLP1E, which says that we cannot have an article about a person/persons famous for only one event, especially when that one event is the commission of a crime. WP:CRIME has fairly high standards. My opinion is that this article needs to be re-written and focused on the event, rather than the two principals, because those two people are not notable enough for an article. WP:BLP would still apply to how we describe those two people, but the entire "tone"/focus of the article would change. And I believe our guidelines require that it change. If people feel that such a question is beyond the scope of this noticeboard, however, I'm happy to start an RfC on the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The article has plenty of content about living people and as such all that is subject to BLP policy - {{BLP other}} it is not a biographical article and the title is not really a big issue either imo, as it pertains to report the event only - suggestions for a rename might find a more suitable title that points more at the incident than the two people - they are though, only known as the TTwo in relation to this incident so I don't see it as a big issue - Its correct imo that standards of notability are less restrictive for incidents than people - it is a minor crime though and with little long term notability. As living people the Tokyo Two are not imo notable. After looking more and attempting as sm write - I don't think its a notable event - and I would support merging to a good location with a redirect.Youreallycan 19:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Which event is not notable, the theft or the persecution that followed? For a non-notable event, their persecution certainly received a lot of world-wide press coverage. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

So its a report about a notable persecution in which the persecuted received a suspended one year prison sentence, that is not a lot of persecution imo - greenpeace are an activist org and are well aware of how to get maximum coverage for their cause. This issue imo is no more than a section in some main article in regard to Greenpeace's anti whaling work and a redirect. Its not a notable persecution and its not a notable crime either. Youreallycan 10:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

They were mistreated during the investigation. Both a U.N. human rights group and Amnesty International noted their mistreatment. This is mentioned in the article and references are provided. Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW, for people not familiar with the incident, acting on a tip from an informant, the two intercepted a box of stolen whale meat and reported it to the police. Then THEY were arrested, detained for WEEKS of harsh interogation, and finally found guilty of theft, a major reputation destroyer in Japan. The actual misappropriation of the meat by the whalers did not result in any charges. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Mustafa Kazemi

Additional eyes and opinions regarding the controversy section would be appreciated. The negative material is sourced to some sort of weblog "Blackfive.net" which does not appear to be a neutral source or meet WP:RS criteria for contentious info in a BLP. The Guardian is listed as a source, however it does not appear to substantiate any of the claims made. The issues with the article have been raised via OTRS and it looks long overdue for some clean-up. I'm tempted to simply cut the section out altogether, but would appreciate additional review first. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd support cutting the section unless another source is provided. The Blackfire posting is amateur investigative reporting at best, not a reliable source. Lesson learned here: don't embellish your Google+ profile info! The Interior (Talk) 21:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I cut it - edit summary, "http://www.blackfive.net/ - is not a reliable source for controversial biographical additions" - and made a few other edits - I would support deletion as he imo is not notable - no awards - very weak coverage in the cites - low traffic on his main outlet which is his twitter account. - Youreallycan 23:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Jason Russell

Comments of obviously defamatory nature — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.14.94 (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The worst of the comments seem to have been deleted, but this article is an unholy mess. Frankly, on the basis of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E alone, I'd suggest that the article should be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

He is notable for more than only the recent incident, so the article would probably survive an AfD. Feel free to start one, though, when things have calmed down and the article has been protected (and thoroughly checked for vandalism and BLP violations). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The article[13] was a little heavy on the quotes and use of sensationalizing imagery. It's a biography of Jason Russell, the article name is not Detainment and hospitalization of Jason Russell. Try to balance the article better and put the info in more encyclopedic terms. Yes, maybe starting an AfD will help keep some attention on the article long enought for the "incident" to blow over as well as ensure that the article in fact is notable rather than sensational. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

To clarify: although it would be OK to start an AfD, right now is probably not the best time. It's best to let the situation calm down before anything is done. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Given the poor sourcing, and the obvious concerns for privacy, I've deleted the section entirely. I what is alleged to have happened is true, it is a gross breach of privacy to report the actions of what seems to be an individual under severe mental strain - and if it isn't true, we sure as hell shouldn't be reporting it. Note that the Huffington Post, one of the 'sources' cited states clearly that "it's not confirmed that the naked man in the video is actually Russell". We shouldn't be providing links to such material... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not oppose the removal of that material for now - it's probably justified, as a temporary measure. But I'm afraid that BLP simply does not require that no material about bad things people do while under stress ever be included in articles about them - so don't expect that total removal to be forever. Something will have to go in, eventually. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Er, no. Unless there is evidence presented that an article about Russell meets our notability guidelines, there may be nothing to 'go in': this is not a newspaper. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say anything one way or the other about Russell's notability - obviously, if he's not notable, there shouldn't be an article. But if there is going to be one at all, then yes, the incident will have to be mentioned, briefly and in a suitably encyclopedic way. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Dae Gak

Dae Gak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There have been numerous recent incidents on this page in which contentious unsourced material has been posted, removed, and the then reposted. In all of the recent cases the person posting the material, which clearly violates BLP policies (as well as wikipedia philosophy generally concerning point of view and sourcing) has used an unregistered IP account. I think the best course of action would be to block this IP user and possibly semi-protect the page (since there have been previous incidents on this page involving other unregistered IP accounts). --Durruti36 (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There is now a dispute over the content of the talk page for this article. While, at least for now, all contentious unsourced material has been removed from the article itself, all of that same material continues to "live on" on the talk page. In my reading of the relevant wikipedia policies, the same criteria apply to the talk page as to the main article. The problem is that the entire talk page is devoted to nothing other than endless repetitions of the same contentious unsourced material that has been removed from the main article. When I removed all of this material from the talk page (after posting my intention to do this on the talk page in question, inviting discussion, and waiting for one week), another editor (Tao2911) called foul and restored the material in question saying that "Editor Durruti completely dumped the ENTIRE talk page - this is completely unacceptable." Any guidance from experienced Admins would be greatly appreciated. --Durruti36 (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Wholesale deletion of entire threads is probably unnecessary and (if unnecessary then) inappropriate. See WP:TPO. By going too far in this direction, you risk creating the impression that you are trying to win a content dispute by making it impossible for people to discuss things properly. "Obvious" BLP violations should indeed be removed -- but if others disagree that they are BLP violations then it's probably not "obvious", and a more selective/targeted approach is probably advisable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  - But aren't there are always those who disagree with the removal of material that obviously violates BLP policies? Such as whoever posted it in the first place. But in this case a clear consensus, or at least a status quo, had been arrived at concerning this material with respect to the main article. All I was doing was removing the very same contentious unsourced material from the talk page that had already been removed from the main article. So it seems to me that unless there is some separate policy allowing such material on talk pages, it must be removed. Immediately. Without discussion. The drastic nature of this move is only in terms of appearances, because it just so happens that there is no discussion on the talk page that does not include material that violates BLP policies. --Durruti36 (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    - But aren't there are always those who disagree with the removal of material that obviously violates BLP policies? No -- it's usually a matter of other people simply disagreeing with your interpretation of BLP. If you think that "there is no discussion on the talk page that does not include material that violates BLP policies", then my guess is that you have a pretty idiosyncratic approach to BLP. Again, see WP:TPO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Are there any Admins out there willing to help out with the issue of determining what is appropriate material for the particular talk page in question? As far as I can tell from reading all of the relevant policies, there are no special allowances for talk pages when in comes to BLP issues. For example, here is what the page that Nomoskedasticity linked to says: There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Pay particular attention to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which applies to talk pages as well as to articles: "Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." ( TPO: Maintain Wikipedia Policy) Also, there is a section of the talk page guidelines that deals specifically with the removal of other people's comments( TPO: Other's comments), and it specifically says that Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed, and that this is appropriate in the case of BLP violations. As it is now the talk page in question is a free for all in which the same BLP violations (that have all been removed from the main page) are repeated over and over again on the talk page. I would greatly appreciate any help from Admins who are willing to take a look at this page and make specific suggestions about the best way to remove these BLP violations. --Durruti36 (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Patti Boyd

If anyone has a few minutes to join the talk page discussion for this article it would be of immense help. I recently made some bold changes to this article, removing what I considered to be off topic content, partly in response to an earlier post here at BLPN. [14] However the creator of the article who brought it to GA status 4 years ago is upset. I see in hindsight if would have been prudent to contact them before making significant changes. At present there is just the two of us on the talk page and the discussion is somewhat tense and we need help on how to proceed. A neutral party or two would be most welcome in giving insights about the current state of the article and what should be done now. Thank you for your help. Link to discussion on the Patti Boyd talk page-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a minor case of "ownership" here with a dash of "I will unilaterally delist it from GA if you don't go back to my article" tossed in. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

More of a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard issue (but hasn't got to that point yet) than a BLPN issue. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The Family Murders

A new editor, Rvoight (talk|contribs), has been deleting references and text (see here, here, here and here.) regarding the suspects (who are not named in the article) in this murder case. He variously claims the following reasons in Talk:The Family Murders:
(1) That The Advertiser newspaper is not a RS.
(2) We cant use a newspaper as a source for what the police claim.
(3) The claims are inaccurate (Rvoight has declined a request to provide a source for this).
(4) As no charges have been laid, the article can not say how the police believe the suspects are involved.
(5) That inclusion of the suspects involvement would upset the victims' families.
(6) It's old news.

Rvoight is possibly also Todmanave (talk|contribs) and 59.167.130.76 (talk|contribs) who have recently made the same deletions.

I have tried to address his concerns in Talk and have added several of the references he provided to the article. I have also corrected some inaccurate text and done some rewording (see here for the changes I made) but he continues to revert to his version despite being warned.

I dont want to ask for him to be blocked if any of his concerns are valid so can I have some outside eyes to check if there are any BLP problems with the disputed text? Wayne (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is primarily lurid descriptions and remarkably little fact other than the other suspects are not charged and presumable never going to be charged (including naming one in the cite). Stuff which is not really of any use in the encyclopedia article and which is, at best, one step removed from gossip, does not belong here. Sorry. You might wish to examine the discussions on how to treat "criminal allegations" in BLPs as well, and the recent consensus thereon. Collect (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Collect, could you link to what you are referring to above, notably "the recent consensus thereon"? Cheers! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The unnamed suspects are not "public persons" hence the "we can print notable allegations" loophole in WP:BLP does not apply. What does apply directly from the policy is: Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there is additional protection for subjects who are not public figures. See also WP:BLPCRIME which states: A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court. 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 when the person has not yet been convicted.. More soon. Collect (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, well that all appears to be pretty clear, logical and uncontroversial. No unfounded mudslinging, especially concerning criminal accusations against non-notable people. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 09:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

How does that apply to living people who are not identified? IE:A statement from reliable sources that a person who isn't named did "such and such." Wayne (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that either and would welcome seeing how the community looks at this problem. That being said, I'm a bit wary of such a drastic deletion. The recent arrest and pending trial may be problematic but the other allegations you deleted have been made repeatedly (at every cold case review) by the police to encourage community support in solving the crimes, they are not "gossip" from the media. The three suspects are central to the ongoing police investigations and have been for almost 30 years. Wayne (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW. In response to your edit comment, the suspects were NOT cleared by the DNA tests. Despite no match, all the suspects remain suspects. The DNA testing was a "long shot" that was not expected to work. The "other stuff" you mention are known facts (not allegations) so what is the reason they "fail" BLP? Wayne (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

D'oh. DNA tests were concluded. No charges were filed. Ergo - the DNA tests did not implicate the persons in any way. Cheers. Now let's keep the tabloid stuff out of what should be a simple article. BLPs are not the place to say "Oh -- someone thinks the person may be a murderer." Really. Collect (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The DNA tests are irrelevant as to guilt. The coronial inquest named them, the police believe the suspects are guilty and have evidence implicating them but insufficient to prosecute, the main witness against them died and the statute of limitations prevented the laying of many proven charges that are directly related to the murders. They are not named in the article so we should be able to say what the police stated publicly. This is an extremely high profile case in South Australia and the current version implies there is no evidence and no valid suspects. Wayne (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

At least one of the sources DOES specifically and directly name a suspect - which is why the cites and claims do not belong. And the current version makes no such "implication" at all. There is zero reason to identify "suspects" (in at least one case by name, in the others with sufficient material to idenify the names) per WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I agee with Collect and Captain Screebo. There is zero reason to identify suspects in the The Family Murders article whether by name, innuendo, etc. per WP:BLP. Please edit the article with this consensus in mind. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning. The suspects are not identified in the article, there was insufficient information to even guess their identities and there was NO inuendo. In regards to the suspects, while there is insuffient evidence to charge them with the murders, which the article clearly states, the associated claims are supported by police statements and the testimony of witnesses given in the coronial inquest which found these claims to be true. Probably due to the statute of limitations precluding charges being laid, one of the suspects has even admitted in court that the claims are true. Wayne (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Electoral fraud

Electoral fraud#Misinformation, second paragraph, accuses two prominent philanthropists of fraud for funding a large national organization group that sent out fliers with a too-late deadline for returning Wisconsin election ballots. two sources are blogs sponsored by political opponents. The third one is a "Politico" blog that does not mention the names of the two men. The word "fraud" is synthesis--it is not mentioned in any of the three cites. The article starts by defining fraud as "Although technically the term 'electoral fraud' covers only those acts which are illegal, the term is sometimes used to describe acts which are legal but nevertheless considered morally unacceptable, outside the spirit of electoral laws, or in violation of the principles of democracy." Therefore the two men are accused of very serious legal or moral offenses with no RS saying they had any knowledge whatever of the episode. The edits were twice deleted as violating BLP and then twice restored Rjensen (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"Fraud" has a specific legal and criminal meaning. 1.Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

The attempt at redefinition is not even a valid perversion of Wikipedia. Remove the word - and remove any allegations which are based on partisan sources or blogs - this is an example of the worst of "political silly season." Collect (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

On investigation off the supporting citations it seems undue and a possibility presented as if fact - so I have removed it unless consensus supports its inclusion. I left the two users desirous of this addition a note 1, 2 - linking to this discussion. Youreallycan 23:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The allegation is specifically of a violation of Wisconsin's election laws. In an abundance of caution, I have removed the references to the individuals in question. I have replaced the original content sourced by reliable sources and further added the specific complain made and the response from the accused. The larger issue at hand is the article for Electoral fraud is in a terrible sense of disarray, poorly authored and even more poorly sourced. My point here is that the motivation should be to improve these articles rather than delete large swathes of largely valid content. Electiontechnology (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the material is full of problems. First, the first pargraph, which pre-existed the material, is unsourced and WP:OR. The lead-in sentence to the new material is also unsourced and WP:OR. Primary sources are cited to (Wisconsin statute and a complaint). I don't see any sourced basis for labeling this "fraud", even assuming it violates Wisconsin statute. I disagree with Electiontechnology - the material is too shoddy to remain and should be removed unless there is a consensus for a complete rewrite. I haven't removed the material because I'm about to log off, but I support its removal in its present form.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I have again had ot remove the disputed content - it had been tweaked but the basic problems still existed. The article scope should not be so broad to include specific claims about issues that were not subject to legal action. - Youreallycan 10:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm unclear what the concerns are with the underlying content. 1)The group send the misleading information by admission 2) The Wisconsin Democratic Party alleged fraud. What part of this in any way relates to BLP? What is it that you actually disagree with here? Electiontechnology (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Their opponents claimed fraud - well , was there any legal action? If not partisan allegations of crimes are undue and as such the issue is claimed to be the deliberate action of living people alleging criminal violations without any legal report to support the issue. The details or some of them might fit in the actual article about the election but not in an article about fraud. Youreallycan 10:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

the offending text is based on explicit personal attacks on the Koch brothers, and have no other purpose than to attack these two people, who are often targeted in election campaign rhetoric in 2012. If the true goal is to demonstrate examples of false dating, please use an old example that does not make accusations involving BLP and does not ignite a hot button issue in 2012. Secondly, the references to Koch are NOT gone, they are explicitly included in the footnotes, which is just as bad as having them in the main text. The first footnote of the latest attempt says: "Wisconsin Democratic voters targeted with Koch-funded absentee ballot notices advising them to vote two days after the recall election" Rjensen (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I've removed any explicit mention of the funding source for AfP from the footnote and softened the tone. This is clearly no longer a BLP issue. If there's still any remaining concerns we should probably discuss them on the Electoral Fraud talk page. a13ean (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You write is about the same issue and doesn't imo address any of the main concerns. Why not present your desired addition here so users can have a chance to comment on it, thanks - Youreallycan 15:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

First, the claim that this information is based on "explicit personal attacks on the Koch brothers" is not supported by evidence. I do not disagree that the initial edition was poorly worded and the Koch support of AFP is not notable in this context. That said, I'm uncertain how you can dispute that incorrect information was distributed or the relevance of this. While a statement was issued by the state's chief election officer warning of incorrect ballot applications, GAB investigations are confidential, and it does not appear that further information is available (though there is a blanket statement that all lawsuits regarding the recall elections were dismissed). Regardless, the article should not be simply a listing of examples of election fraud, that provides little value. I fail to see how one could argue that this incident doesn't provide the reader with a better understanding of the topic. Misinformation is certainly a relevant topic and other examples are available (see things like the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, etc.). I don't see how suppressing this information under the banner of BLP is relevant. Even, so, I've been no attempts here to form consensus or respect for good faith editing. Can anyone address these specific concerns or offer some alternative other than the wholesale deletion of otherwise relevant content? I'm including the latest suggested revision below for comment. Electiontechnology (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggested Revisions

Another type of electoral misinformation is to give voters incorrect information about the time or place of polling, thus causing them to miss their chance to vote. In August of 2011 Americans for Prosperity, a conservative political advocacy group distributed fliers in Democrat-leaning Wisconsin districts which advised voters to send in their absentee ballots two days after the election deadline.^[1]^[2]^[3] The group stated the mailing was the result of printing error, however the Democratic Party of Wisconsin filed a formal complaint with the state’s Government Accountability Board alleging Americans for Prosperity "displayed a continued pattern of tampering with the electoral process in Wisconsin with elaborate, illegal and fraudulent schemes designed to suppress Democratic votes." ^[4]^[5] and the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee called for an investigation.^[6]

- http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/02/news/la-pn-solyndra-ad-20111102
- http://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/0811/AFP_Wisconsin_ballots_have_late_return_date.html?showall
- http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/koch-group-mails-suspicious-absentee-ballot-letters-in-wisconsin.php
- http://d21971ua898zk6.cloudfront.net/39/19/8/921/2/8.1.11_afp_gab_complaint.pdf

I see no possible BLP violation in this removed text. This appears to be a misuse of this board as a conservative canvassing violation. Hipocrite (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence of any fraud at all. - If you want to add examples of election fraud - I suggest you find some convictions to clearly demonstrate to readers when the different types are. Youreallycan 15:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You are misusing this board, about BLP violations. Hipocrite (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Hipocrite has simply replaced it, no wonder stable consensus solutions to discussion are so hard to come across here. - Youreallycan 15:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You are either misinformed ~~or lying.~~(struck bad faith comment Youreallycan 19:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)) Hipocrite (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Your comments are unduly attacking, please be a bit more polite. I prefer you strike it but I will give you a chance assume good faith - What are you suggesting I am lying about? - as you have failed to specify any lies I have struck that part of your comment - Youreallycan 19:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You said I "simply replaced it." This is obviously untrue. You obviously didn't spend enough time evaluating the situation before taking a position. Hipocrite (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC) (ref: [15] vis-a-vie [16] is by no means "simple replacement.") Hipocrite (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, my comment was unclear but that is a long way from lying. You only replaced a part of the disputed content, I had rather meant that you simply replaced it without a comment anywhere. Your actions ignored the good faith attempts here to create a consensus through discussion here. I see User:Goethean is following the same path now, he has reinserted the disputed content with a single drive by revert without any part in the discussion at all diff . - all of which just derails the discussion and increases the disruption Youreallycan 19:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You write "replaced it without a comment anywhere," but again, you are either misinformed or that word that makes you so angry. Are you sure I made no comment, anywhere about the text before attempting a version that would satisfy all concerns? Hipocrite (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You simply replaced it - leaving a comment on a talkpage immediately prior to that is not joining in the ongoing consensus forming discussion . Youreallycan 19:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought you already agreed that I didn't "simply" replace the material, have made only one edit, which was not a revert and I'm in discussion on the relevant talk page. You, on the other hand, have reverted one, two, three times. Hipocrite (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thats right - its common practice to wait for consensus to arise through discussion in relation to disputed content in relation to living people. Simply ignoring the good faith efforts to resolve through discussion is demeaning to the developing discussion. Users sadly have developed this style of pushing and pushing rather than allowing a consensus decision through discussion and thats one of the worst things about the project. Youreallycan 20:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree it's terrible that some users would revert an article 3 times to their preferred version in under 24 hours. What should we do to get you to stop, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

And there it is, your battlefield mentality and your jaded good faith you have developed over the years. Youreallycan 20:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No comment. Hipocrite (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

on the substantive point the text that was removed contains this headline from a partisan blog: "Koch Group Mails Suspicious Absentee Ballot Letters In Wisconsin" -- that puts BLP in play. None of the sources say that the Koch brothers were in any way involved so the statement fails all the BLP rules and is clearly inserted to hurt the Koch brothers. Picking a hot 2012 partisan political issue an a key example violated the NPOV rules--the editor seems much more interested in making certain individuals or organizations look bad. He should pick an old issue that has been litigated in court, where "fraud" is a crime. Rjensen (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Rjensen, thanks for pointing out your concern with the implication in that one reference. It looks like it has been removed and we're moving closer to consensus. I don't disagree that other examples should be referenced in this article, but that doesn't detract from the relative importance of this reference. I disagree that it represents any POV as I don't believe it being a "a hot 2012 partisan political issue" represents anything other than its general notoriety. I don't stand the logic of excluding it based on that. If you have other specific concerns or suggestions, I do encourage you to respond. I think the additional attention this article has received will be for the benefit of WP.

Youreallycan, while I agree this now may not be the proper place to have this discussion (as the text no longer makes any reference to BLP), I do encourage you to continue working towards consensus. However, in reference to your fixation on examples of fraud, I disagree that the WP article should simple a list of examples of fraud. These articles are far more complex and explain in more detail the role of misinformation and a better understanding of how fraud is perceived. That said, I would not be opposed to two changes clarifying the situation. First, "alleged" can be a bit of a weasel word (I believe my original text had something more innocuous like "stated" or "reported") and there is no reason that it shouldn't list the ultimate outcome "no charges were filed" or whatever preferable language can be sourced. Electiontechnology (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

no one has found an example pre 2011 -- and the one example they found turns out to be an issue in a very tense Wisconsin 2012 election. That contaminates the example. Edits that emphasize Koch brothers (who were not involved), and which deliberately leave out the explanation that it was an office mistake, leave the very thick odor of POV. If no other examples exist, and this one did not lead to official charges, than it's either POV or trivia and should be dropped. Rjensen (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that has no plausible BLP aspect whatsoever. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The original report clearly has BLP considerations and there has been a developing good faith attempts to work towards a solution to the content issue and the scope of the article - accusation of fraud against living people in an article entitled Electoral Fraud has clear BLP concerns. Youreallycan 19:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Rjensen, odors aside, I believe your comments are less relevant to current edits. First, multiple examples are currently included in the article. Second, the article as it stands makes no mention of the Koch brothers. Third the article does in fact present the explanation of the offending party. If you refer to my previous comments in this section I've even suggested further amending that text with regards to even the possible appearance to POV. That said, I have seen to response to the specific concerns raised with your opinions or edits and no attempt to contribute to the repeated attempts at reaching consensus. I encourage you to read carefully the opinions of the many editors that have now contributed to this section, the article talk page and the article directly. I believe the concerned section is much improved and should hope you will not continue your blanket deletion of properly sourced content in the future.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Electiontechnology (talk • contribs)

You, I believe there in a tense concern with your argument. I believe you meant "The original report had" as that was in the past and it is no longer. This conversation has rightly been moved to the article talk page. I agree with the multiple other editors here that there are no longer relevant BLP concerns. I consider this discussion on this notice board concluded and I encourage you to take any specific concerns with the current edits to the article talk page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Electiontechnology (talk • contribs)

The BLPN issue appears to have been resolved and the discussion has moved to the article talk page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh 2

A "mugshot" of Limbaugh is used as a picture - and is clearly labelled "Mugshot." I removed the word "mugshot" and was reverted at [17]. I consider the emphasis on it being a "mugshot" to be UNDUE per se, and likely not even a proper use of the image. Other opinions? Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear about your contention: are you saying that captioning Limbaugh's mugshot as a "mugshot" ("mugshot" being the common word for a mugshot) gives UNDUE weight to the fact that it is what it is, i.e. a mugshot? IMO it's certainly a very becoming mugshot, as mugshots go, and without the inclusion of "mugshot" a reader might easily mistake it for, say, a publicity shot. And anyway see, for instance, the unmistakably mugshotty mugshots at Mel Gibson, Nicole Richie, Snoop Dogg, Charles Manson, Whitey Bulger (four in poor old Whitey's article, a WP record?). All captioned as mugshots. Personally I'd rather not see mugshots in WP articles at all, and I suspect they're included more for shaming than for information. (Doesn't work, of course, where Limbaugh's spiffy example is concerned.) But if they're going to be displayed, "mugshot" is le mot juste. Writegeist (talk) 09:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if you are going to have a mugshot, call it a mugshot. Writegeist, you described the other mugshots as mugshotty but the two I looked at are hardly so, and certainly aren't mugshitty. Richie looks amazingly good, considering; and Gibson (considering all that was said about the incident) astoundingly so, his hair immaculate as if suffering from nothing worse than amateur lighting. I remember the mugshot(s) from Paul Reubens first, career-stopping arrest as making him look pretty sleazy, but our article doesn't show this/them; it does show a mugshot from his second, return-halting arrest, and this would fit a job application form. I start to suspect a sympathetic tendency in WP: we show mugshots of the famous if those mugshots aren't too embarrassing. (If this tendencey really does exist, I'm in no rush to oppose it.) -- Hoary (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

An arresting photograph indeed. The commons pic description says, booking photo from his arrest in 2006. These charges were eventually dropped by the local prosecutor. - the charges dropped and the fact that the picture is unrecognizable as a mugshot actually imo make its inclusion gratuitous. that is unless its been reported about how good he looks in his booking shot. Youreallycan 11:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be labeled accurately as either a mugshot or an arresting shot. Binksternet (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you give any solid reason for a not particularly interesting pic where other pics are in the article already other than to emphasize "mugshot"? Collect (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hoary you're right about Gibson and Richie, they really don't lag far behind Limbaugh (the lighting for G and R is indeed criminal, so perhaps I was fooled by that). And yes, the shot of Reubens looks no mugshittier than a good passport photo. One report I saw said RL went with his lawyer to the county jail to surrender, but the reporter may have wrongly identified a portrait photographer. Our caption to RL's smugshot could be revised to "Official portrait marking the occasion of Mr. Limbaugh's arrest on April 28, 2006". Interestingly, there's a vigorous trade in mugshots on eBay; thousands up at the moment; and RL, apparently quite a mughotty, is offered as a "New Hot Picture Poster". Writegeist (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I.e. - zero actual reason for having the "mugshot" photo when similar non-mugshot photos are already in the article. Thanks for making that issue clear. Collect (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh my sincere apologies Collect, I forgot about you and your content dispute when I replied to Hoary. And it might be seen as a teensy bit precipitous for you to allow a mere 96 seconds before you go all snippy because of not receiving immediate attention to your surely less than urgent needs. Be that as it may, the text in the article says: According to Teri Barbera, spokeswoman for the sheriff, during his arrest, Limbaugh was booked, photographed, and fingerprinted, but not handcuffed. I.e. the sheriff's department took a mugshot. And the adjacent image is the sheriff's department's mugshot. It depicts what's in the text. (See the image use policy, specifically: Images on Wikipedia should be used in an encyclopedic manner. They should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article.) Is the mugshot relevant? Yes, obviously. Does it increase readers' understanding of the subject matter? Yes, obviously: here is the image referred to; this is what it looks like. Does it depict the concept described in the text? Yes, obviously. If look at other Wikipedia articles you'll find it's common practice to add relevant images. Of course if the Limbaugh article's mention of the image were removed, then the image itself would be less relevant and there could be a case for its removal. Perhaps that's what you want; I don't know. I'll leave any further comment to others now. Writegeist (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to booking photo.[18] The source of the photo, Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office's, calls it a booking photo. Whether the booking photo itself should be in the article is an editorial decision, not a BLP issue. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Andrew MacLeod

There is insufficient referencing and the article reads as if self-written, biased, and advertising for speakerships. --Ddragovic (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Has been worked on (depuffed and tidied up) by several editors so far, but still needs more work, I had a quick run around on Google and don't really feel that the person meets WP:GNG, although they certainly do have 'bragging rights' (hey! a photo with Bill Clinton!). What comes up is the usual LinkedIn, Facebook, promotional stuff, oh and of course the wiki article right up there in the hits. Care to take a look? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 23:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel the same way. On one hand, he has received ostensibly notable (but poorly sourced) awards and recognition that are facially additive to meeting WP:ANYBIO. Otherwise, the subject falls far short of WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. The excessive amount of commerce-related content and junk citations in previous versions, dominance of WP:SPA contributions, and prolific image content all indicate a problem. If this is taken to AfD, I hope a notice will be left here. JFHJr (㊟) 05:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree, see Ddragovic's tp comment @ Talk:Andrew_MacLeod#Considerable_Misleading_and_Inaccurate_Information, a lot of the claims appear to be unsubstantiated/inappropriate/puffed up (delete as appropriate) ;-) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The article was re-puffed, from bad markup to bogus cites, and I reverted. An IP editor is still making some questionable edits, but I'm not inclined to edit war. It might need protection, or it might just need eyes for a while longer. Any thoughts? JFHJr (㊟) 05:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I've carefully edited portions of the page but as noted on the talk page I have a question: Are opinion pieces and articles in newspapers worthy of note on these pages? They are not peer reviewed nor ground breaking investigative journalism nor opinions held by anyone of substantial notability or influence so as to be prominent for their ability to influence. Secondly, the prominence of this person could possibly be argued (I emphasize possibly) based upon his former position as CEO of Committee of Melbourne, nothing else in his back ground is particularly notable, but as a notable (assuming that there is agreement on this) then his background is of interest. So at what stage does the background outweigh the notable parts? It seems to me this article is heavy on the background to what should otherwise be a two or three paragraph article on someone who formerly held a somewhat notable position. I've stopped editing here just to get some feedback. --Ddragovic (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you're appropriately pointing out unsupported claims, WP:UNDUE weight, and WP:SYNTHESIS of sources to produce content that is not supported by the sources themselves. This often happens when cites are thrown at {cn tags without rewriting the prose: the proponent finds something, anything that might look like it supports what was already written. Sometimes it works, but with puff pieces, it generally doesn't. I agree regarding the insignificance of many passages you've removed — in fact, many had been removed a several times to be replaced with the exact same nonsense, from WP:PUFF to bad markup and misleading citations. I'll add that I don't think the position itself was notable at all: many have served, and this is the only former employee being promoted. Also, this subject's speaking in his work capacity about something else doesn't help him show notability. If there's an op-ed or interview this subject gave about an issue, especially as it relates to his (former) position, it shows the issue is worth talking about, and it is likely of little or no biographical significance. Thank you for having a look at this. I hope others will also. JFHJr (㊟) 14:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: Great job on the article, just gave it a look in, removed some unsupported claims that have sneaked back in, checked some bits and pieces, copyedited a copyvio'd passage. Still needs keeping an eye on as
Boydisperse (talk · contribs)
seems intent on putting stuff back in that does not necessarily appear in the refs and is a single-purpose account, having edited just three pages outside of MacLeod's, all concerned with the 2005 Pakistan earthquake! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 12:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Same here. — Racconish^Tk 10:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh op-ed piece

The issue is a recent deletion of material in the article originally entered in 2006 from a 2005 op-ed appearing the the Wall Street Journal. It is a summary of 180 words from an article by Limbaugh defining the conservative movement. It is important that the article that discusses the person who is considered to be the nation's most prominent conservative include what his views are on this movement. It is due weight against the preponderance of material in the article characterizing what what his views are in a critical or inaccurate way.

The diff where I restored the content after providing a rationale on the talk page diff patsw (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you completely when you say, "It is due weight against the preponderance of material in the article characterizing what what his views are in a critical or inaccurate way" - too many of our political articles are not about the subject but soapboxes for partisans opinions of them. - Youreallycan 17:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Patsw, I modified the header to differentiate this discussion; I hope you don't mind.

Regarding the editorial, I don't think it is Wikipedia's job to put forward first-person opinions from biography subjects. What is more relevant is the opinion of other people about Limbaugh's opinions.

More to the point, the archived opinion piece, "Holding Court – There's a crackdown over Miers, not a 'crackup'", from October 2005 Wall Street Journal, is not specifically about defining conservatism in America, it is about Harriet Miers being nominated for the Supreme Court. In the diff presented by Patsw, you can see that the section puts forward the Limbaugh opinion piece as "defining the conservative movement", but there is no affirmation from third parties to say that the piece indeed defined such a movement. In essence, we have a violation of WP:No original research if we continue to host this op-ed piece as a definition of the conservative movement. What would be best is if a third party observer can be found to note the effects of Limbaugh's opinion. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Patsw's edit summary is a clear acceptble position - "restored 1000 bytes containing Limbaugh's view of the conservative movement in this 86,000 byte article" - less than one and a half percent of the article covering Lindburg's comments in regard to his most notable beliefs is in no way undue or excessive or a violation of any wikipedia policies - in fact refusing to allow such a minimal inclusion is a violation in my interpretation of wikipedia policies and guidelines. Youreallycan 19:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

A good biography of Limbaugh would include his views a the conservative movement, as a good biography of George Washington would include his view of government, or Lincoln's view of the Union in his biography. The bizarre principle that seems to be applied here is that some summary of the views of the biographical subject at the core of their life are per se excluded from a Wikipedia biographical article. Can we, for a moment, distance ourselves from the particular subject of this article and stipulate that a subject's own views are not per se excludable - especially when they represent less that one percent of its text?

I think it is self-evident from the context of the entire op-ed that Limbaugh is making a distinction between personal loyalty to a President with whom he disagrees on a narrow matter, and bigger and timeless issues. He seized the moment in 2005 to make a statement. Demanding that this op-ed, now after six years, requires a third-party affirmation that it constitutes (1) Limbaugh's views and (2) specifically Limbaugh's views of the conservative movement is not supported by a Wikipedia policy or common sense.

Finally, a third-party was involved. The Wall Street Journal judged Limbaugh's op-ed to be suitable for publication. It was not self-published, OR, or COI. patsw (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

But did it receive any attention? Did it get discussed? Or was it the tree that fell in the forest, with no one to hear? We are writing a biography of the most salient points of the man's life to date, and if we include something that had no significant effect then that something is given undue weight in the article. Binksternet (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't calibrate "attention" given to sources as a matter of policy. If you want to argue that the publication of an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal is "insignificant" or not "getting attention", then that's a discussion for the talk page. If there isn't a policy or guideline violated evident here, then this can be marked resolved as kept. patsw (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:No original research is a definitive reason for changing the header even if the text is kept. The header cannot say "defining the conservative movement" if that is not what the op-ed piece was about. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This is more of a content dispute than a BLPN issue. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Could we have a full clarification of what policies and guidelines are believed the disputed content violates - or we going to through all of them one by one, until one is found which can prevail in getting the content removed as a violation?

How can it be a WP:original research violation to give a section heading of "Defining the Conservative Movement" to content which states "...We conservatives are proud of our philosophy. ..." among other core ideas? This is an absurd claim to apply here. patsw (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sal Strazzullo

Persistent long term edit warring over sourced content relating to alleged sexual misconduct. Only the NY Post is given as a source, and a quick Google search doesn't turn up any other references. As well, much of the positive content--unencyclopedic filler like 'areas of practice' and 'bar admissions'-- is sourced only from the subject's website. The impression is that the page is a tug-of-war between factions. Some decision on the content's relevance is in order, and, if necessary, an eventual page protection. But first some feedback on this, either way, would be helpful. 99.168.81.249 (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If thats the only sourcing our coverage would make us the primary vehicle for the detail. I would not report it until, or unless there was a deal reported. - its a civil case, Civil suit, for cash compensation, with no criminal report. Without particularly supporting its existence, I made a small write to remove a bit of the titillation and moved it from such a prominent position. Sal Strazzullo#Sexual harassment suit - Youreallycan 14:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As usual, excellent work from you and Bbb23. Much appreciated, 99.168.81.249 (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I've practically stubbed the article. It was poorly written and even more poorly sourced. I removed the tabloidy section on the sexual harassment case. Unless the article is expanded properly, the section is gossipy and undue. If the Post is to be believed, Strazzullo is actually sufficiently notable to have an article, but it needs to be drafted better.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

As it stands there is no evidence of notability. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeh, but I haven't done WP:BEFORE (I usually at least do a Google News search before nominating), and AfD is such a warm, welcoming place.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Bernie Siegel

- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Siegel (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For those interested. (olive (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC))

I have offered an opinion at the AFD, but I'm not sure why it's been brought to this page, or if there's any violation of WP:BLP. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I posted here to notify any editors whose interest is BLP. I wasn't aware that only BLP violation concerns should be posted here, but that may be so. I have no problem with deleting this notice. However, I did have concerns about notifying editors on some Notice Boards like the Fringe Theory NB and not others. (olive (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC))
  - I wouldn't fret over it. The instructions on this page are somewhat ambiguous as to what doesn't belong here. Generally, a rather expansive view is taken, though, and reports of AfDs on BLPs are not uncommon.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
    - True enough. But without any explanation other than 'for those interested' it suggested the possibility of forum shopping. And anyway, I bought it. 99.156.65.73 (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
      - It's not canvassing to post an alert of an AfD on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  - AfD deletion discussion notices can be posted to locations listed at Wikipedia deletion sorting. In fact, there already are a few in the Bernie Siegel AfD (see "Note: This debate has been included in the ..." posts by Gene93k. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
    - Thanks. My mistake re: posting here. As it happens I've commented at the AFD only because I came upon this section, and am scratching my head as to the rationale for this AFD.... 99.156.65.73 (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
    - I don't see BLPN as one of the locations in deletion sorting. As far as I know, it's intended for related projects, not for noticeboards. Otherwise, every nominated BLP article would be listed here.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Terrell Fletcher

I've reverted an editor who may well be the man himself a few times already, for introducing non-neutral, unverified information--for turning the article into a puff piece. Eyes are welcomed. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I've given clear advice on the user's (actually, users') talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the particular Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons issue you are concerned with? Non-neutral issues can be dealt with at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and unverified information doesn't necessarily raise BLPN issues. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone turning an article into a puff piece is very much a concern for this board, since one man's puff may be another man's fact. The NPOV board doesn't usually deal with minor BLP issues, which is what this is, just minor. Hoary, thanks for your intervention. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Aubrey O'Day

I ran into something troubling at Aubrey O'Day. IP Editor User:207.172.177.182 made this edit, which cited September 11, 2011 instead of February 18th 2011 and Perez Hilton instead of Paris Hilton. Those are significant choices; the date change implies that she was partying in New York the evening after the World Trade Center attacks, and associating her with Perez Hilton rather than Paris Hilton is arguably also putting her in a bad light. When I went to the talk page, I saw another editor has warned 207.172.177.182 about inserting incorrect information, and when I looked at the contributions I saw that all his/her edits were related to Danity Kane. I really don't know enough to evaluate all the edits (I kind of stumbled on this - I normally edit engineering topics) but I suspect that we are seeing someone trying to slip in subtle errors that serve to disparage one or more living persons. Could someone with more experience in BLP violations please look into this? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

From User talk:207.172.177.182, appears to be part of a disruptive editing effort. The caption on the Wikipedia Commons image reads "Paris Hilton’s 30th Birthday, Lavo, February 18th 2011"[19] and the September 11, 2011 comment is unreferenced, so it seems reasonable for you to have change it.[20] If you have time, please review the rest of User:207.172.177.182's edits in the Aubrey O'Day article. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this here, Guy Macon: 207.172.177.182 (and a possible sock, Tysmooth, as their only article edits are similar to the IP's) has been inserting what appears to be false information on the Danity Kane articles, such changing release dates, saying the band has reformed, and adding non-existent images. I was thinking about blocking them yesterday, but decided to go with warnings instead (I missed that Paris/Perez Hilton change and would have blocked if I had seen that one). Acalamari 11:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This IP needs to be blocked. Look at this edit, changing a song caller "Poetry" to "Peotry" or this one, replacing an image with a bogus name.

Do I need to submit this at WP:AIV and WP:SPI or can someone here deal with this? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Guy Macon, not everything you pointed at is vandalism. Taken together, though, there's plenty of disruption to warrant a temporary block. Now, that other editor, y'all please don't be too quick to throw the "sock" word around. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

~~The IP User appears to be evading the block.[21]~~^{See Below} The actual edit does not appear to be objectionable - Two different IP users put up two different images, and there does not appear to be any particular reason to prefer one over the other. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not any of the IPs who have committed vandalism. I am the IP who has had a content dispute with Macon. I am the editor Macon is now reverting out of spite. I reverted to the long-standing image and Macon reverted me, acting as though I have to discuss my revert first. Uh, no, I don't. Not unless the other editor keeps adding the other image as the main image, which would then require a WP:Consensus discussion about the images. 23.20.151.72 (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I am taking you at your word and have struck out my comment above. I have no "spite" towards you, nor do I care about which image you and the other IP prefer. Please calm down and Assume Good Faith. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Laurie Holden DOB discrepancy

Date of Birth discrepancy between wiki article and IMDB. Please address.

Wikipedia article displays: Heather Laurie Holden (born December 17, 1972)

IMDB displays: Born: Heather Laurie Holden December 17, 1969 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.64.212.107 (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

We don't necessarily consider IMDB a reliable source - but there doesn't seem to be a source for her DOB in our article. I'll see if I can track one down. Thanks for pointing this out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

On checking, there seems to have been some debate on the IMDB boards too: she appeared in a film made in 1985 or early 1986, when she would have been no more than 13 years old if the was born in December 1972, in a role that would have been distinctly inappropriate for her age. [22] Having said that though, this is all user-generated, and as such we are back with the problem of establishing a reliable source. I'm not sure of the best way to deal with this... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Because of the lack of sources, we leave the DoB out.--ukexpat (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I found that she was born in L.A.,[23] but didn't find any birth date. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I took it out for the time being - I found this , imo it is weak and could easily be a mirror of an unreliable source - http://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/laurie-holden/bio/161462 - You tube is mirroring wikipedia's uncited date, lets see how long it takes them to update.Youreallycan 09:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Mike Daisey

A lot of people are upset about Mike Daisey, who, it's claimed, let his pursuit of the Truth (capital T) cloud his regard for the truth. (See this short list of articles at the Guardian to get up to speed on this.) At least one of them is editing the article Mike Daisey, and not for the better. There's also apparent silliness, like changing to 1972 (unsourced) just one of the (unsourced) assertions that he was born in 1976. (No, I've no idea when he was born.)

I've a hunch that the upset will continue. More dispassionate eyeballs on Mike Daisey, please. -- Hoary (talk) 09:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sergio Tacchini

Sergio Tacchini is notable as a tennis player because he played in Davis Cup. But this article seems to be taken over by "sponsorships". How do we deal with this? He no longer owns the firm , but "Sergio Tacchini" is indeed a brand that he created. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

J Marshall Craig

This article links to nothing! It seems to have been written by the author himself bearing in mind the "critically acclaimed" type of comments. Having checked these books out, they are all self published and there seem to be no conventional reviews anywhere of any of them. The links section is entirely unlinked to any other pages, either within Wiki or outside of Wiki. There is an IMDb link but that is the only active, external link. Does this meet with the Wiki bio standard rules as there seems to be nothing of note which can be externally proven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.51.59 (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment I have put on a BLP unsourced tag. At first sight this person likely meets notablity guidelines to get a standalone article, at least if the info in the article is true. But it needs work and research to be brought up to standards. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Eyes needed

Mo Twister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rhian Ramos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've just taken a chainsaw to the Mo Twister article and stubbed it down to within an inch of its wiki-life due to some egregious BLP and WP:UNDUE issues. The Rhian Ramos article has also been affected with the same issues recently. I'm hoping that a couple additional editors who are well-versed in BLP policy could watchlist these two articles to help limit the disruption. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

BLP objections at Gabriel Cousens

I wrote this article and supported its creation at Deletion Review. I am also in contact with Mr. Cousens' offices, and they have objected to our coverage of the Levy incident. On their behalf, I am asking for some uninvolved editors to review the section which is in question (Gabriel_Cousens#Controversy, as well as the fourth paragraph of the lead).

I have argued that the controversy section is sourced to three different reliable sources: Phoenix New Times, AZ Central, and Quackwatch. In an article of 4000 words, the controversy receives under 500. I believe it is neutrally described without going into excessive detail. Of course, it could always include less information, but I believe doing so would deprive the reader of basic facts about the case needed to make their own determination.

Cousens' office has argued that the sources on which the section is based are not reliable, especially Phoenix New Times. They have also disclosed a private statement to me about the incident suggesting the sources about it are inaccurate. Since that statement is not published, I could not incorporate it into the article.

I would appreciate someone, or multiple someones, taking a look at this section. Thanks very much. Cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I've already removed that sentence from the lead--it strikes me as undue, at least for the lead. As for the rest of the article, holy moly what a bunch of silly, weak, and unreliable sources. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
This article is a nightmare, a spamfest. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Quackwatch is an opinionated attack site not a reliable source. Youreallycan 14:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Kavinsky

Taken from the kavinsky page

This song has been sampled by twice, the first was by Lupe Fiasco on the track American Terrorist III in 2011; the second time was by Will Young, in his 2012 single Losing Myself

- http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/mar/17/martyn-hello-darkness-single-review?newsfeed=true

This is stated as fact but even the link you posted says the track was POSSIBLY sampled, Will Young as never said he used it and Kavinsky said on twitter over a month ago that he stole it and was going to sue but so far he as not done so (maybe he as found he as not got a case) it only takes a couple of weeks to get an injunction in the courts to stop a single being released ....the single was released this week with no problems.... So until there is proof this is libel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.48.61 (talk) 09:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Marc Morris

Someone purporting to be the subject has reverted me. I'd prefer not to edit-war, so I'd appreciate some eyes on this article to see if the edits break any or all of COI/NPOV/CRYSTAL etc. Thanks --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Its clearly coi and crystal - but - its just irrelevant really. The article is not a biography its an advertisement using en wikipedia - a person with a couple of books and here is the link to his blog and links to sales sites - there is a cut and copy issue also as it seems duplicate one way or the other to this http://authorsplace.co.uk/marc-morris/bibliography/ is a copy of ours or ours is a copy - basically its worthless imo. Its like amazon spam. - Why is he wiki notable? Youreallycan 14:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Good spot. Stub further reduced and notability questioned. --Dweller (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I think he's probably notable as a historian (WP:PROF), and there's plenty of reliable sources that mention him as a presenter, some that discuss him. Can you see the results of this search? I see 21 hits--pity I can't get the Times article. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Warlow

Resolved

– Issue resolved. JFHJr (㊟) 02:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

With regard to the revival of Phantom of the Opera - Anthony Warlow article - at the Princess Theatre Melbourne, the role of Raoul was played by John Bowles. -- Blair Edgar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.27.213 (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It appears that someone made the above requested change.[24] Also, it's not really a BLPN issue. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Nelufar Hedayat

Resolved

– Questionable content oversighted, page watched. JFHJr (㊟) 02:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Major attention needed in the 'Background' section of Nelufar Hedayat article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.116.132 (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

- Seems to have been resolved and a recent single addition from a New York IP has been oversighted - the user may well return - please add to your watchlist - thanks - Youreallycan 19:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- I just checked the article and all's quiet. No BLPN issues since the oversite of the New York IP. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Lidia Bastianich

Resolved

– BLP vios removed. JFHJr (㊟) 02:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The edits made to the Personal Life section of the Lidia Bastianich article on 18 February 2012 describe a lawsuit alleging perpetration of slavery. These allegations are unsourced and are potentially libelous. Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lidia_Bastianich&diff=prev&oldid=477596634 chinkleDC (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes - I have removed them[25]: per WP:BLP policy, you could have done the same thing yourself, but thank you for bringing it to our attention - I've watchlisted the article. As to whether this issue deserves mention in the article if properly sourced, I think we will have to see how it is reported elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It's been a few days since Andy's edit and no one has added the BLPN material back in. This BLPN request appears to have been resolved. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Glenn Spencer

Resolved

– BLP improved. Thanks everyone! JFHJr (㊟) 02:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The article appears BLPN OK per Youreallycan and Collect's edits as of this edit. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Francis Muthaura

Resolved

– Article cleaned up. JFHJr (㊟) 02:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Reading this article, the language seemed too glorifying of the subject. Checking the history showed large additions in Feb 2012 by user:Pnkoroi, with the majority of the text being WP:COPYVIO from Muthaura's own website http://www.muthaura.co.ke/profile.html . I have rolled back to before this users edits, but there were some actual edits that contained updated news of Muhtauras political career and ongoing trial at the International Criminal Court, however they were unreferenced. Perhaps a more competent editor that myself can fix/update the article? regards 94.195.187.69 (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Any BLPN issues appear to have been resolved via edits and the article appears BLPN OK as of this edit. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy Byford

Resolved

– Factual error removed. JFHJr (㊟) 02:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Please note: I was not born in Plymouth. I grew up there. Thanks. Andy Byford — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.29.129 (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting us to this error. Since one of the sources used in the article makes clear that you grew up there, but specifically doesn't say you were born there, I have fixed this to "grew up in" instead of "was born in".

Incidentally, the article does not currently have a photo of you, because Wikipedia cannot use ordinary press release photos and similar. Do you own the rights to a photo of you that you would be willing to license freely? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andy. Tell you what. If you (or someone who took photos of you) uploads a photo or three (childhood, school, present, for example) to Wikimedia Commons for use in the article, I'll rewrite the article and give it much more detail. If that sounds like it would work for you, please post my talk page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Assuming, that is, that such material can be verified by independent reliable sources and conforms to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

List of California public officials charged with crimes

- Now nominated for deletion discussion -

I have serious problems with this--in fact, I'm kind of shocked we have this. Not "convicted," but "charged," and there's plenty who are still alive. There has been some discussion on the talk page (and a proposal to move it to that title, "convicted," making the appropriate cuts), and just about the only argument I could find there for this article is "they're public officials." That argument comes from the article's main editor, User:GeorgeLouis. I will notify them of this discussion, but I want to have this discussed here, on this board, because the article's talk page doesn't see a lot of traffic. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't know if you've seen this discussion on a similar article, result there was an Afd and bye-bye. The Interior (Talk) 03:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm actually more interested in a kind of "move and trim" operation than deletion, but I'm glad to see that there's precedent. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Support at least the removal of 'charged' individuals, and moving the article to 'convicted public officials'. One is partial to the above precedent, and wonders if such lists constitute a synthesis of original research. Eh, probably no such luck.... 99.156.65.73 (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I've just blanked the entire article - it is as gross a violation of WP:BLP as one could imagine: it provides no source other than links to our articles - and we can't cite ourself as a source. How the hell can anyone seriously think this sort of thing is acceptable? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, on further inspection, it does seem to be providing some sources - including acquittals. In any case, the whole article is a monstrous heap of policy violations. I ask all who give a damn about Wikipedia policy to ensure that the article remains blanked (as WP:BLP will require) until it is deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a great deal of angst at the thought that there are no sources, and I would certainly like to know what policy forbids the reporting of facts. I refer you to the pertinent comments on the Talk Page. I might add that this page has been getting more than a hundred hits every day, so it certainly has high interest. I also am offended at the use of cursing in this venue. Thank you very much. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you actually read WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:OR or indeed any of the numerous other Wikipedia policies this 'article' violates? As for your complaints about cursing, I'll refrain from adding the obvious response. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The traffic is pretty high (http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/List_of_California_public_officials_charged_with_crimes), but of course if there is any given item that offends WP policy, then I'm sure it can be easily corrected. Sincerely, still your pal, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What the heck has website traffic got to do with violations of policy? WP:BLP policy is entirely clear: we don't compile lists of non-notable individuals because they are involved in crimes - and even less so when they have only been charged - or worse, when the have been acquitted? And since when is the fact that "Supervisor <-redacted, out of common decency->, indicted for rendering and collecting fraudulent claims against the county for road work on Union Avenue" of any relevance to Wikipedia, even if said supervisor hadn't been acquitted? The whole thing stinks of some sort of attempt to portray the California political system as corrupt - through original research. Maybe it is - but we don't engage in primary research ourselves to prove it - particularly if such 'proof' involves dragging those found guilty of nothing whatsoever through the mud. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: WP:BLP policy is still violated in this article - given that the AfD is undoubtedly going to close as delete, can I ask an admin to speedy close it to prevent further violations AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I second this call. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

What's the emergency? The article is going to be deleted in due course, perhaps by SNOW. Somewhere we should make it clear that lists of people accused of things is not a suitable subject for the encyclopedia. BLP isn't chicken little. For goodness sake, please follow process. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, what does it matter that some people who were only accused of crimes have their names drawn through the mud for a few more days while the bueuracracy runs its course. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It does not much matter, the criminal accusations are a matter of public record as it is and we aren't going to diminish or enhance that either way. You've already edit warred to blank the article, and if your latest reversion sticks it isn't even an issue. Not every BLP matter is an emergency requiring us to set off the fire sprinklers and run down the halls screaming. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done BLP is not currently violated in this list as the list has been blanked. The discussion is not complete and should be allowed to continue its course. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Given that the article in question has been blanked and unblanked several times, the fact that at the moment BLP policy isn't being violated seems rather beside the point... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for allowing the discussion to continue. Once all of the entries were sourced, I do not believe that the list violated BLP or any other policy. In fact, it is the repeated blanking or all or almost all of the article during the AfD that seems to be a violation of WP:DELETE.--Hjal (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

And once again, we have evidence of a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy - that something is sourced (or at least potentially sourceable) is a necessary requirement for inclusion in an article - but it is never a sufficient one. We can, and do, exclude lots of reliably-sourced material all the time - mostly because it simply isn't encyclopaedic. Wikipedia isn't a repository for everything, and we make decisions on what we include based on a community consensus regarding what this project is supposed to be about - and judging from the AfD discussion, there seems to be little doubt that this list isn't what Wikipedia is for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Gabriel Cousens, again

A question for you all: take your pick between this version and this version. Please look carefully at the sources and consider what we consider to be reliable sources for BLPs. Look at the lead and the division into sections and consider what the MOS says. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I've stubbed the article while this discussion is ongoing. I would like to note the possibility that there is a middle-ground approach which is neither too detailed or too short, is still balanced, and uses sources which are reliable for the specific instances of material they support. Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, please consider WP:WEIGHT issues related to the Charles Levy incident section. Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You're obfuscating. You keep claiming that "there is too much controversy" when I told you that I don't care about how long the controversy is. The problem with the article is not that there is too much controversy: the problem is that there is not enough material that derives from reliable sources to make a decent article long enough to suit your fancy. This version that you produced here, I'm fine with it--though I wonder why you had to choose a non-English reference whose reliability is doubtful, why you couldn't just pick this source or this source, whose authority is unquestionable. But I know why that is: you want the reference that says he is a world-famous guru, the only reference that might be reliable that says he is a world-famous guru. Not the impeccable references that suggest he might be a quack. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You have very quickly turned this into a mess of accusations and bad faith. You might not know that I wrote the entire article from scratch. I was the one who researched and wrote the full controversy section. I also included the criticism from Sciencebasedmedicine.org. I argued strongly for the inclusion of the controversy section, over objections from other editors as well as from Cousens' office. So, I think you are getting off on the wrong foot here. There decision to choose rollingstone over phoenix new times was because the content is uncontroversial, and a stub should be uncontroversial. Would you consider trying again to discuss this civilly? Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no desire to respond to loaded questions. BTW, Sciencebasedmedicine.org is also not a reliable source. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Either the first version, the stub, or deletion. Wikipedia is not a billboard. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Carlos Cortiglia

- Carlos Cortiglia

BLP candidate standing for london mayor 2012 - he as yet appears not notable for his own bio - can someone have a look at the what imo is some kind of undue reporting of a complete non event - le nation a Spanish published an interview in 2003 and thelondonist interpretated the interview and accused him of fighting for Argentina and later retracted http://londonist.com/2011/09/bnp-picks-mayoral-candidate.php - apart from this there isn't even reliable reporting of the non event, and he didn't ever fight for Argentina - it seems totally undue to me - excessive quotations and asserting something unspoken? Youreallycan 19:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

John Demjanjuk

A discussion has broken out on the talkpage of this article if Mr. Demjanjuk should be labeled a "Nazi" in the lead (while he was never a Nazi party member) of the article (I think that is not neutral wording and/since articles about similar persons as Mr. Demjanjuk are not labeled "Nazi's" in there leads (which is very neutral)). I would like some outside comments on this. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see he was a Nazi - he was a Ukrainian camp guard - Nazi camp guard - and would not even have been allowed into the party - however he has also recently expired and is not a living person so its a bit beyond the scope of this noticeboard. - Nazi has become a catch all meaningless word. Youreallycan 22:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right on all counts T'oucan. And there's no Nazi like a dead Nazi, is there. But we seem to be stuck with WP:RSs. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The same RS (like BBC News) who state he was a Ukrainian camp guard also state he was a Nazi.... Nazi has become an all meaningless word indeed.... Which is worrying... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

What we see in that discussion is a desire among some editors to set aside what is in the sources about him. Ten points for guessing what weight we should give to your own opinions about what makes someone a Nazi. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I had always imagined that all the guards at the Treblinka and Sobibor wore a uniform, probably a Nazi uniform. But I guess not. Regardless, for me, he became a Nazi by association, whether he had a little cardboard membership card or not. But my personal opinions count for nothing here. And I suppose it is worrying that the word "Nazi" gets, in some way, diluted by over-use. A kind of paradox. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I was just wondering how careful an Wikipedia editor should be with the word "Nazi". But I am well aware of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. To be honest I am not sure if I would call him a Nazi, that depends if he liked his work (i.o.w. he had antisemitic/Nazistic views) as a guard or not (if he did like it for me he also is a Nazi by association)... But he was silent in is trail about this... So we will never know.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think editors should be very careful that they are summarizing sources accurately with every edit, especially with something as inflammatory as calling someone a Nazi. Why not say he was a guard at a Nazi death camp? That's accurate and it makes it clear what his affiliation was. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Warlow

Resolved

– Issue resolved. JFHJr (㊟) 02:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

With regard to the revival of Phantom of the Opera - Anthony Warlow article - at the Princess Theatre Melbourne, the role of Raoul was played by John Bowles. -- Blair Edgar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.27.213 (talk) 10:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It appears that someone made the above requested change.[27] Also, it's not really a BLPN issue. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

References

^ The Los Angeles Times: Conservative group launches ad campaign on Solyndra loan http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/02/news/la-pn-solyndra-ad-20111102
^ http://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/0811/AFP_Wisconsin_ballots_have_late_return_date.html?showall
^ http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/koch-group-mails-suspicious-absentee-ballot-letters-in-wisconsin.php
^ Wis. Stat. Section 12.13(3)(c) states, in pertinent part, that no person shall willfully prevent the delivery of official ballots within the required time. Wis. Stat. Section 12.05 states, in pertinent part, that no person may make a false statement which is intended or tends to affect voting at an election.
^ Verified complaint by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin to the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board
^ http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60515.html

[1] The Los Angeles Times: Conservative group launches ad campaign on Solyndra loan http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/02/news/la-pn-solyndra-ad-20111102

[2] ttp://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/0811/AFP_Wisconsin_ballots_have_late_return_date.html?showall

[3] ttp://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/koch-group-mails-suspicious-absentee-ballot-letters-in-wisconsin.php

[4] Wis. Stat. Section 12.13(3)(c) states, in pertinent part, that no person shall willfully prevent the delivery of official ballots within the required time. Wis. Stat. Section 12.05 states, in pertinent part, that no person may make a false statement which is intended or tends to affect voting at an election.

[5] Verified complaint by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin to the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board

[6] ttp://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60515.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]