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

I have to head to bed - and I also don't want to edit war on this very serious and thus emotional issue. Could I please request some eyes on this article, where one or more editors have been inserting the rumor that the anonymous blogger is Anders Behring Breivik? I have just removed it for the second time - the first time it was put in unsourced, the second time with a source that seemed adequate to me, but now I have examined the source and (maybe it's been updated in the interim) it does not support the assertion that the rumor has been raised in a number of newspapers. In any case this seems to me to be a very serious allegation requiring very strong sources and a consideration of whether it merits inclusion even then. Beyond that, I have tried to fit into the article as well as possible the mentions of Fjordman as being particularly admired and cited by Breivik, although it seems a bit undue, and I'm doubtful about the references to the manifesto and to a video. I think that issue is a separate one, but I'd welcome more attention to that from the point of view of BLP policy, too. I hope this is the right place to ask. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have put the article on my watch list, but I hope that someone who has greater skill in Dutch (and any other non-English language used in a cite) will also watch it. In my view, this is precisely the right place to ask.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This has become a significant problem. There is now a section in the Fjordman article on Breivik and the supposed "connection". It's WP:COATRACK and it has BLP issues. I've reworded it to reduce the BLP issues (calling Breivik a terrorist, even though he hasn't been convicted yet; putting in the number of murders even though that's a moving target), and I've opened up a topic on the Fjordman Talk page, but it will probably get worse. The article needs more eyes from here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Edward Furlong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the interest of fairness within a public forum, being a regular member of the public myself, I'd like at least to see an image attached to this article that is representational of Edward Furlong's well-known likeness as an actor. The present image attached to the article is obviously in bad taste and serves only to indicate that the authors of this article are not interested in a balanced view point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.189.154.181 (talk • contribs)

Seems a reasonable request. The problem is, the current image appears to be the only freely licensed image of him that's available. That is, assuming we accept that User:Egon Eagle, who appears to be in Sweden, really does own the copyright to this image on Commons. (There are a couple of supposedly free images of Furlong on Flickr, but they look to me to be obvious copyvios.)

How to get round this? Well, you could discuss the removal of the image from the article, and no replacement, on the talk page for the article, or you could write to Furlong's agent and ask if they would like to provide a nicer-looking photo under the conditions described here.

One could also perhaps make a case that Furlong's notability stems almost entirely from his work as a child actor, and that therefore a non-free image of him from an earlier movie could be used under fair use. I'm not really sure how well that would be received, perhaps others can comment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "fair use" is a good idea here; it would be very hard to justify use of such an image, when a free one exists, and there doesn't seem a particularly compelling need to have another, specific image. The NFC statement on this excludes Pictures of people still alive [..] provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopaedic purpose, and although it has the exception for ((some [..] retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career)) but I don't think that would apply here.

I don't think a young image would be best anyway; generally, a more recent photo is preferred, and his career is ongoing, including recent movies. (If we had a second picture of his younger self, then that would appear lower-down the article. But again, I think it would have to be freely-licenced).

I don't think the picture is that bad. I'd definitely suggest asking the actor himself/his agent for a better, freely-licenced image - that would be the best solution of all; it's worth a try. See Wikipedia:Example requests for permission.

And failing that - if you really do hate the pic, then as Demiurge suggested, start a discussion on Talk:Edward Furlong, explain why, and see if others agree to its removal. (WP:DISCUSS). If you go that route, it'd be worth asking on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers - in a neutral manner - for others to please contribute to the discussion, to help form a consensus.  Chzz  ►  10:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Chzz. Yes, unfortunately I think the word "retired" really kills the possibility of any current fair use of an image, as Furlong is nowhere near retired. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Gabriela Stern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am certain this is not a legitimate biography. Not only is this biography poorly written in its grammar, spelling and diction it contains a load of balderdash. Gabriela Stern I believe is some kind of experiment in making someone out of no one. There is no such person in Amadeus. The only credits that she has on Imbd are ones that have been created by her. Anyone can create an Imdb profile. She is listed nowhere on the Medicinema site as any kind of volunteer member at all. She is not listed as any kind of committee member on the Cancer Research UK web site. Hundreds of people and groups design T-shirts for the Race for Life. She certainly did not develop the perfume Nuance as that perfume is a discontinued Coty brand manufactured by a Canadian pharmaceutical company. I distinctly recall the commercials for it and there was no mention of Gabriela Stern or anyone else. The sentence; "....improve the lives of women and girls by transforming the institutions and values of our society through legal advocacy and education." is a direct quote from the Legal Momentum web page for a New York organization which, again, has no mention of Gabriela Stern. This might be a "stage" or pseudonym but there are no common names on any of the boards or committees mentioned in her biography. Not a single thing in this biography can be confirmed. I believe this is someone with time and money to waste who has decided that they will make themselves into some kind of celebrity. Allowing this biography to stand as it is opens up the way for any Linden Lab character to start putting up any kind of nonsense they so wish. How is anyone to know what is legitimate or not? I rely on Wikipedia for a great deal of information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.45.102 (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I cannot answer for how "true" the entry is, but Gabriela Stern seems to have very little coverage in reliable sources so I have proposed the article for deletion (as without this coverage it'd be impossible to verify the information there.) Looking at the article history it looks like the major contributors to the article have made few edits outside of it, so it's possible that there was some conflict of interest going on. There's probably a fair few of these articles floating around (we do have over 3 million in total) but thanks for pointing this one out. Cheers, doomgaze (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

A couple editors keep arguing that even though multiple WP:RS show prosecutors say that during the trial they gave corrected evidence (that there was only one chloroform search) to the defense which provided it at trial and even though prosecutors were about to give this evidence to the jury, this information does not belong in the trial section. One therefore reverted this new edit of mine (which also corrected some factual errors). Two of us feel it is a serious BLP violation not to put this in the trial section but an earlier section where the exculpatory value is not perfectly clear, especially to casual readers. Please comment on this narrow issue. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

See the discussion about it at Talk:Death of Caylee Anthony#Trial section error to understand why some of us don't view it as BLP issue. The information is already covered right above the Criminal trial section, in the Excluded from trial subsection. That heading is perfectly clear to readers. This information, while presented to prosecutors, was excluded from trial (from the jury). How does this not belong in the Excluded from trial subsection? And if included there, why should it be in both sections? I could understand if we were leaving this information out, but we are not. Flyer22 (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm shocked that anyone would excluded multiple inclusion of key evidence from the article. BTW ya'll do know that the examiner of the hard disk had informed the prosecution that the data given was highly flawed. John lilburne (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

To make it easier to understand, beside NY Times article saying the prosecution witness alerted the prosecution during trial, this is the most relevant part of the text related to the period of the trial (which does include jury deliberation period):

The prosecution stated they discussed the issue with defense attorney Jose Baez on June 27th and he raised the issue in court testimony and in closing.Ref 1 Baez asked Judge Perry to instruct the jury about this search information, but prosecutors disputed the request. On July 5, furing deliberations, prosecutors were about to give the jury corrected information about the one search, but the jury reached a verdict before they did so. Had the jury found Anthony guilty, this would have been grounds for a mistrial.[Ref 2

{Later note: the WP:RS info in quotes above actually was removed in total in the editors edit, with some minor tweaks later. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne, I'm not sure why you're shocked. Though there is need for "multiple inclusion of key evidence" in some instances of this article, that is not what this is about. The discussion linked above goes over it. This "key evidence" was not included at trial, so why does it belong in the Criminal trial section that goes over evidence that was? Why is it not better left in the Excluded from trial subsection and only that section? And exactly how is it a BLP issue when this information is presented quite clearly for readers to see? Carolmooredc completely removed it from the Excluded from trial subsection, which makes no sense to me. "Presented to the prosecution" does not negate the fact that this information was excluded from trial. Flyer22 (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you denying that the two sources above are accurate? Reliable? Both talk about things that happened during the trial regarding exculpatory evidence. To remove the WP:RS supported details of how such evidence was handled during the trial, and then to move it to a section and write it in such a way that it is not really clear that this was in fact exculpatory evidence (in fact the word is not currently used) is clearly a BLP violation. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not about denying that the sources are reliable. It's about not seeing it as BLP issue when the fact that Bradley admitted this is right there above the Criminal trial section for everyone to see. The subheading Excluded from trial is quite clear. Why you act as though our readers would not find this information is beyond me. Flyer22 (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I would propose a compromise - actually I already made the edit, only seeing this discussion after the fact. The compromise is that we maintain the material in question as is, with a simple redirect at the end of the sentences: For updated information, please see: "Excluded from trial" Section. This is similar to the way it is done i law journals. I realize this is not a law journal but I think it is only way that I know to maintain the intergrity of the actual testimony (Flyer's and my opinion) yet note there is more to the story in another section, i.e., Excluded from the trial Section. If consensus is different, you may change or delete my edit as of course you already know. Mugginsx (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That is essentially what I suggested when I brought this up and I fully favor it. Also, to be clear, almost all the sources I've read say that the correction was mentioned during the trial, either at closing, in the trial or both.LedRush (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I like Mugginsx's compromise proposal. And I tweaked it. Something like this was also suggested by LedRush. Does this compromise work for you, Carolmooredc? Flyer22 (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Putting something in a section saying it was excluded when clearly it was included is an absurd logical fallacy. Even if I beef it up with the removed information above and say exculpatory several times and give it its own section, the fact is many readers will not make the connection if it is not in its chronological and logical order. They will still think she did 84 searches and chloroformed her kid. If that's not a BLP violation.... Non-involved editors opinions needed. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It was excluded from trial. "Presented to the prosecution" does not negate the fact that this information was excluded from trial. It was not evidence used at trial by the prosecution. This means it belongs in the Excluded from trial subsection of the Evidence section. You act as though our readers are downright stupid. How are they not going to "make the connection" when the subheading is quite clear, and when the Criminal trial section now says "Bradley later retracted his '84 searches' assertion" and points readers right to the section that discusses it? It is clearly no longer a BLP issue, if it ever was. It's also funny that you are now making the "chronological and logical order" argument when that is the main argument I have made for keeping this later information out of the Criminal trial section. It's clear that you are just wanting things your way, since you are unwilling to compromise. LedRush already accepts the compromise, yet you are fighting it for reasons that make no sense. Flyer22 (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Since I don't necessarily agree with prosecutors that Baez referring to it was sufficient notice, I guess I could go by my own notion it was not properly presented at trial. If WP:RS details like those I just put in the excluded area are left, and if it is clearly re-stated that this information later was found incorrect and the prosecution failed to properly tell the jury in a timely manner, with dup refs, then it will be acceptable. So let's see if people trying to get rid of the information in the excluded section, and fight a proper short exposition of what happened with repeated refs, then we'll see if there is a BLP violation. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind you including anything about this in the Excluded from trial section. I'm saying we do not need all of this (or any more) information about it in the Criminal trial section and why that is. It is not a BLP issue, especially since it is now made clear in the Criminal trial section that Bradley later retracted his testimony about the 84 searches...and points people to further information about that. Four people are for all of the details about this being in the Excluded from trial section; no one is trying to get rid of it from that section. Flyer22 (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have now made changes that make it clear just what happened in both the Excluded section diff and the trial section diff. The latter being just two sentences that clearly state what happened and clearly direct people to the relevant section. These two sets of changes address my BLP concerns with this issue which have expressed many times at the talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

And like I stated in altering your change, "[We don't] need the second line. Trimmed. Fixed [proper] formatting. It is not up to you to decide what compromise is acceptable. This is enough, as four editors are for it. It's up to you to convince us otherwise, and you haven't." Flyer22 (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I added this bit in because it is needed to show that this information was not presented to the jury. Flyer22 (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI. The minor changes made later, plus some factual corrections I also made later, satisfied my BLP concerns on this issue. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Fry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Barry George (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• - Category:20th-century criminals

Hello,

I recently noticed that on the Barry George article, he is listed as being in the categories "English Prisoners and Detainees" and "20th Century Criminals". I assume this is because he has a) served time in prison, and b) committed a crime. I therefore considered this to be the standard categorisation for those who have committed crimes and served time in prison, so as the same applies to the writer and broadcaster Stephen Fry (who served three months in prison for credit card theft) I added these categories to his entry. This edit was rapidly reversed with the lines "Not appropriate per WP:BLP". I'm confused - if these categories are unacceptable for Fry, why would they be acceptable for George? Clearly there must be a fair rule for application of these categories - would someone please be able to advise me as to which one it is? Jeremy Wordsworth (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason I undid your addition is due to a section of our BLP policy that says For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability. As I understand it, the category should only be added to people who are notbable because they committed crimes, which is not the case here. I welcome other editors opinions, however. doomgaze (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, but in the case of Barry George, he's notable for being wrongfully convicted of a crime and serving eight years in prison as a result. By this arguement, the fact that he had an earlier conviction isn't the reason for his notability. But yes, it'd be interesting to see what others have to say. Jeremy Wordsworth (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say George should be in "English Prisoners and Detainees", because he certainly is known for his incarceration - despite the overturned sentence - but he should not be in "20th Century Criminals" - because, he's been acquitted. And Fry shouldn't be in either, because his unfortunate teenage prison stay is entirely unrelated to his fame as a 'national treasure'.  Chzz  ►  14:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Note - although George was aquitted for the murder of Jill Dando, he has served time in prison for attempted rape and impersonating a police officer, although this isn't what he's notable for. Another example in this case (which shows the slightly arbitrary nature of this categorisation) is the actor Leslie Grantham, who is famous for playing Dirty Den on Eastenders, but who previously served time for murder. Clearly the Eastenders role is what gives him Wikipedia notability, and he's not in "20th Century Criminals", although he is in, amongst others, "People convicted of murder by Germany", "Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment by Germany", "People paroled from life sentence", "English people convicted of murder" and "English prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment". I also find it bizarre that the category "20th Century Criminals" only actually contains 41 records. Really? Jeremy Wordsworth (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

what the hell you saying??? Barry george was a derange man who used to follow girls on his roller skates and tried to kill prince charles and you are comparing him to STEVEN FRY?? that is like saying that look, tghis is Ian Huntley and look, this is my dear old uncle?? i suppose next you will be asking mass murdere to present shows for children?? you are an idiot!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ol' Uncle Screamin Bug (talk • contribs) 20:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Please be civil good sir, you are misrepresenting Jeremy Wordsworth's question. doomgaze (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A Grizzly bear isn't the same as a Barbary sheep, but they're both in Category:Megafauna of North America. No need to get worked up about it.  Chzz  ►  05:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

After agreeing with Chzz's comments, I removed Barry George from the Category:20th-century criminals. Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Miss Cleo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone that appears to be the articles subject has mentioned litigation and removed the previous article contents.The original article did seem to be very weighted against her though i am not well versed in her history.Can someone take a look. thanks RafikiSykes (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Stubbified until someone has time to sort out the mess. The article did have some references to reliable sources, but some of the most controversial material was sourced to primary court sources and government websites etc., which could well be outdated (as the complainant implied) or otherwise misinterpreted. I've also left some advice on their talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Boldly redirected. Feel free to revert and improve. Off2riorob (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

User:SchuminWeb has added the whole lot diff - so it belongs to him now - there is imo some dubious content that he has added. - perhaps he will improve it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He's also blocked the complainant for making legal threats. WP:DOLT is a possibly relevant essay, I think. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a BLP (and no, it is not "well-sourced" - Court TV?). So no, it doesn't "belong to him". I've restored Demiurge's stub version until things clear up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC) (though I'm slightly tempted to add something about the parodying of her in the Boondocks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As it stands now it's A1 speediable for "no context". – ukexpat (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Not according to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• - Nafissatou Diallo Disambiguation

We have a problem right now. If people search for wikipedia information about the woman who accused Strauss Kahn of sexual assault, then they end up on the page of a Senegalese Writer.

It seems like a real BLP problem for the writer to be incorrectly and unjustly associated with a woman who not only accused Strauss Kahn of sexual assault, but also lied on her asylum application, lied on her taxes, etc.

We need a disambiguation page to redirect people to the Strauss Kahn sexual assault case, to be clear that this writer is _not_ the same woman who accused Strauss Kahn of sexual assault.

Is there any objection to that?

This is a case where is seems the BLP concerns of the writer, greatly outweigh hiding the name of a woman who's now very publicly given interviews on national TV.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No objection from me. A disambiguation page would seem to be called for in this instance. Let us wait for the input of a few more editors just to get a balanced response. Bus stop (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• - No one is going to mistake a writer for a maid - the idea that they would search for "Nafissatou Diallo wikipedia" is incredulous - if they were to do that, they are more than capable of searching for Kahn. If as you would expect Google searchers search for "Nafissatou Diallo" - there is no disambiguation conflict at all. Wikipedia doesn't even return a result for that name, and unless you are interested in search engine optimization (SEO) we don't need to either. Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As Rob says, there is no need for a disambiguation page unless we have an article. It would be immediately apparent to anyone that the article on the writer isn't about the housekeeper. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Plus the fact that the writer appears to have passed away nigh-on 30 years ago should put it beyond all doubt. doomgaze (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC).

Er, yes. Bob drobbs, what was that about "the BLP concerns of the writer"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—could you please be more careful about not inadvertently altering another editor's post as you do here? Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Bus stop - apologies to Bob, and thanks to whoever fixed it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It is usually recommended if users ascertain if subjects are alive before that report here. Off2riorob (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but there is no BDPN. Paraphrasing Gloria from All in the Family, "dead people have rights too, you know!"--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "dead people have rights too". From WP:BLP "... questionable material about dead people which has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, should be removed promptly"

And despite editors continuing to suppress Ms Diallo's name, her name is now _all_ over the news. People will search for it. And they will end up on the wrong page. And, Rob is wrong, if you search for her name it turns up the wrong wikipedia page. The purpose of a disambiguation page is "Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily," That's what we should be doing.

We have no duty at this point to protect the privacy of the name of a woman whose name has been all over the press, but we do have a duty to protect the family and good name of the other Ms. Diallo such that she's not incidentally associated with a woman who has engaged in some very questionable, if not illegal, behavior. Are there any actual BLP violations in putting up the disambiguation page? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Google search result for "Nafissatou Diallo" - no wikipedia return - no problem - This whole desire to name the alleged victim revolves around also wanting to add all the disputed allegations that she is a this and a that - none of which we are going to be adding unless there is any confirmation anyway so its all bye the bye. User:Bob drodds wants to add that the alleged victim is "a woman who has engaged in some very questionable, if not illegal, behavior" - bob drodds , unless something major changes, like she is charged with something - its not happening, dream on. Off2riorob (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. This isn't a recent death. You are clearly using this as an excuse to further your campaign to get the housekeeper's name into Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So much for my attempt at humor. I agree with Andy and Rob that a disambig is not warranted. Indeed, users who go to the writer Diallo article by mistake may profit from it by learning about the writer.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A disambiguation page is reasonably called for. I don't think WP:BLP supports keeping the name of a figure with a high profile, off of Wikipedia. I think the individual has taken steps to raise her profile. When this case began, and DSK was under house arrest, the reverse situation applied. A presumption in favor of privacy prevailed at that time because this person was solely known as a victim of a crime. I think that is the situation that BLP especially refers to, though this isn't made 100% clear in policy. But the situation now is subtly different. Nothing compelled the individual in question to give a high profile interview. (It is considered unusual from a legal point of view for an individual in this circumstance to do so.[1]) In doing so I think there is an implication that it is now permissible to pass along information that previously would have been assumed at least in some settings to be considered private. Sensitivity is still called for. But a subtle shift has taken place, and I do not think such policies as WP:NPF, WP:BLP1E, and WP:BLPNAME are particularly applicable anymore. Bus stop (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"This person was solely known as a victim of a crime". Yes, and she still is. If we decide that we will have an article on her, the disambiguation page will be necessary. This isn't however, the place to debate this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting initiating an article on this individual. Bus stop (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23, the primary reason for a disambiguation page is to make it quick and easy for readers to find what they're looking for. Are you claiming (or anyone else) claiming that adding this disambiguation page would _not_ help readers find what they're looking for, if they ended up on the wrong page by searching for her name?

And is anyone at all claiming that there would be a violation of BLP to add this disambiguation page. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob, try this search -- Bob drobbs (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Providing a disambiguation page would not assist the user because there's almost no information in the DSK article about her. So, all the other reasons against it aside, it achieves nothing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

In X months time this person will not be known. Who other than Jackson fans remembers the kid in the saga? Today's newspaper articles will be way down the search engine listings, many of them will be 404s, and if reports are to be believed the main article will contract to little more than a stub. There is no need to create a disambiguation page which will simple act as reminder of this persons name. John lilburne (talk) 08:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

John, you seem to be guessing that in the future she won't be known. But you don't have a WP:CRYSTAL crystal ball. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

She is either the poor woman that got raped, or she is not. The IMF has moved on, the French political system has moved on. There is no collapse of a government, or a government hamstrung by sleaze, no financial system in crises. This is a personal tragedy that affects two people, and once the circus leaves town all that will be left is a half empty jar of grease paint. John lilburne (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Genecia Luo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject in this article Genecia Lou has added information which is wrong and could lead to a law suit in future. It is with regards to her entry of winning the Miss United Nations Singapore 2010 pageant. This is not an authorised pageant in Singapore and itself it is not a pageant as there was no competition held for this. Earlier also there was wrong information about her as she claimed to have won the Miss Singapore Intercontinental title but this also is due for review as she has wrongly mentioned as once again the pageant was not recognised as there was already an existing Miss Singapore Intercontinental winner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolzz84 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't make any statement that might be interpreted as a legal threat, as it may result in you being blocked from editing.

I made a start on removing some of the promotional waffle that had been added to this article, but there is a lot more to do, assistance would be appreciated.

This search produces very little information about Luo in independent sources, but some of the references currently on the article do work, do appear to go to reliable independent sources, and do support some of the claims made about her in the article. I think she's probably notable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Lakshmi Manchu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This information has been inserted in the article, which, although probably not libel, is inappropriate: "She has a very weird habit of calling anyone either as Aunty or Uncle.The hilite of this problem is, she so blatantly and shamelessly continues to do it inspite of such a huge uproar against her on this bullishly stupid habit. In an interview with popular comedian Ali, she referred him as uncle even tough he is just 2 years elder to her. Probably during her childhood her dad taught her that any other female other then her is Aunty and male is uncle, but forgot to tell that as she grows those younger then her are not so."

I have removed the whole section as the content was not supported by any of the references. – ukexpat (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Geert Wilders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vandalism, I would fix it but I know nothing of this man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.162.148 (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been removed. – ukexpat (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Bobby Franklin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I see that, sourced from a blog in The Atlanta Journal Constitution [2], Representative Franklin's death has been reported today. While I've little reason to doubt the credibility of the source, I can't find confirmation for this elsewhere, and I'm unsure how to proceed. Any advice? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a reasonable source - we have over three hundred links to those ajc blogs - Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• - http://www.coosavalleynews.com/np92136.htm -

• - http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/15149995/breaking-news-state-rep-bobby-franklin-found-dead-in-his-home - Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rob. Given Franklin's somewhat-controversial views, it may be a good idea to keep an eye out for vandalism, but I think this issue is settled. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the report. I watchlisted the article - in the second cite - David Ralston said "Bobby was a man of principle and a dedicated public servant who held steadfast to his views." - If more vandalism occurs semi protection at the earliest convenience, vandalism is bad enough but in a recent death case it is even worse. Off2riorob (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

John Fritchey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello. There are several issues with the entry for John Fritchey, an elected official in Cook County, Illinois. I believe sections to be outside of Wikipedia's policies for biographies of living people. As disclosure I am an employee in John Fritchey's County Commissioner office.

In the Career section, the article reads: "His future political career was boosted in 1992, when Fritchey married Karen Banks, the daughter of Samuel V. P. Banks, a de facto ward boss[1] whose brother, Chicago Alderman William Banks, was a long-time Chairman of the Chicago City Council's Committee on Zoning.[2]

The statement "political career was boosted" is an unsourced opinion that is not neutral in tone. The inclusion of professional descriptions of the subject's ex-wife's familiar members in the "Career" section seems to fall outside the "avoid gossip" policy, particularly in its indirect relation to the subject.

In the State Representative section, the article reads: Four years later, in 1996, Fritchey was elected to the Illinois House of Representatives at age 32, assuming Rod Blagojevich's Illinois House seat in 1996 as part of a deal between Chicago Aldermen Richard Mell (Blagojevich's father-in-law) and William Banks, whereby Banks agreed to support Blagojevich for Congress in exchange for Fritchey becoming state representative.[3][4]

Fritchey was elected to the Illinois House, as the article reads. However it is unclear what is meant by the statement that Fritchey assumed office "as part of a deal." The next sentence is a description of presumed political dealings that are not clearly explained, appear to be outside the "avoid gossip" policy and are sourced to a self-published blog.

Also in the State Representative section, the article reads: In 2007, Fritchey put $275,000 from his campaign funds into certificates of deposit at Belmont Bank & Trust. Belmont Bank & Trust was founded in 2006 by and is owned by Fritchey's wife's brother, zoning attorney James J. Banks, who is also chairman of the bank's board of directors and the bank's landlord. Other directors of Belmont Bank & Trust included then Alderman William Banks, criminal defense attorney[10] Samuel V. P. Banks (Fritchey's father-in-law, James' father and law partner, and William's brother), State Senator James DeLeo, and waste management consultant Fred B. Barbara. Then, in December, 2007 the bank gave Fritchey and his wife, Karen, a one-year, adjustable-rate mortgage for $491,000 on their Lincoln Park home.[11]

The inclusion of this information, particularly unrelated details about the board of directors of a bank, appear to be outside the "avoid gossip" policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethlavin (talk • contribs) 16:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Edited the BLP to address these points. Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I welcomed the new editor, and congratulated him for bringing his concerns here, rather than engaging in COI editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Many characterizations are being thrown around on this guy's page atm. Every label possible w/little or no adherence to WP:RS or WP:BLP. For example, if one policeman is quoted as saying the guy was right-wing from reading his website, how is that encyclopeadic? Please keep this stuff out if in question until some time for legitimate analysis and statements by RS. Thanks DerekMD (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There is already a section on this very same page discussing this guy. Kevin (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: Edit the page to ensure that factual assertions are based on reliable sources rather than allowing unsourced or poorly-sourced assertions to stand. That's the normal editing process that has resulted in Wikipedia being the fifth or sixth most popular website in the world. This article, like many others before it, will evolve, improve and some day reach stability. Even now, it is superior to the coverage in the tabloids. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Cullen, the trouble there is, if you try to edit it - others revert. It has facts cited to his manifesto - ref. 4, used extensively for claims such as his membership of a specific church, that he "used the company as a façade to acquire the chemicals without raising suspicion", and lots more. It cites the Daily Mail, which is a very poor quality sensationalist tabloid, widely considered not to be an RS ([3]).

Having a BLP at this time encourages editors to pull together scraps of information gathered from such things as forum posts he made, blog entries, etc. to form something resembling a BLP, when the reality is, there wasn't enough RS to write a BLP. It's like trying to write a BLP about me - you'd find a few bits and pieces on blogs, and so forth - but to pull them together and say "Chzz dislikes vegetarians and sometimes attends pop concerts", and so on, based on those is clearly inappropriate. We wouldn't have a BLP on me 'coz I'm not notable, and we wouldn't have a BLP on Breivik if it wasn't for this incident - and, as it only occurred a few days ago, there is no historical perspective.

This is exactly why we have the BLP1E policy (or so I belived) - so that we do not even attempt this until there is appropriate "historical perspective". Unfortunately, when an admin implemented that policy by redirecting the article, that change was reversed by other admins. And so, we have a very poor BLP which is very hard to manage.

We should've been writing about the Oslo events as an event; from that perspective. Not about this person who is absolutely only known for one single thing.

I still don't understand why we ignored WP:BLP1E.

Of course, one day, we could have a nice, well-balanced article about him - there will no doubt be books about him, which actually look into his background in detail, with verified information. But that day is not today - and it certainly wasn't when it was created, within hours of the attacks.  Chzz  ►  07:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's too hard, so we should give up? Really?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 08:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If we cannot present a neutral, balanced, verifiable article about the person - because they're only known for one event, and at the present there is not sufficient material about the individual separate from the event - then we should cover the event, not the person. This is covered by BLP policy and guidelines, and this is the key point I've been trying to make since day #1.

WP:PERP says, A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there are any existing articles that do or could incorporate the available encyclopaedic material relating to that person. Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size.

All the information on this person could easily be presented from the perspective of the event, up until the present. Apart from the event, the remaining information on their background in simply not in any coherent state, at this time.

Take, for example, his religion/church. The article, as I speak, has "Religion:Church of Norway" in the infobox - referenced to his own manifesto. However, this is not a fair and balanced reflection of reliable sources; there are RS saying he's a Christian fundamentalist [4], and there are RS saying he isn't [5]. At some future date, it will be possible to present a balanced, neutral view about his religious background - but, how can we do that just hours after the attack?

I never said we should "give up", and to claim I did is somewhat disingenuous; I spent considerable time working to make 2011 Norway attacks a decent article. But since this whole debate on BLP1E has arisen, it has been increasingly hard to keep things well-balanced. In spite of that, and resigned to the fact that the article exists, I've a) done my best on Anders Behring Breivik, and b) asked that we discuss BLP1E for future cases.

Regarding Anders Behring Breivik, I'd be grateful to any others helping to keep it under some form of control, avoiding the tabloid sensationalism and claims with unreliable sources (including this 'manifesto'). I still think that it should redirect to the event, and I see that many others agree; but if there is such opposition to that notion, then we have to do the best we can. But we can also try to work out how to avoid this happening - as it does, so many times, when an unknown person hits the news;

Regarding BLP1E, I think it is quite clear from these debates, that the issue needs to be clarified, so that similar disparate readings and interpretations of policies will not cause such problems in the future.  Chzz  ►  11:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As I commented on Jimbo's talk page, the biggest problem with trying to cover current events like this is the fact that news organizations are rushing to put anything they can about the topic out there as they compete with each other in the 24 hour news cycle. This means that the narrative surrounding the event, and the person is constantly in flux, with all kinds of novel analysis going around about him, his ideas and his motivations. Encyclopedic coverage - that is the kind of solid information we expect from a tertiary source - is simply not possible until the event settles down a bit. Abiding simply by our basic sourcing policies is not a help until there has been enough distance from the event that all the noise has been filtered out. I suggested on Jimbo's talk page that as long as we want to play this game, aggregating news information in real time, we need to rethink our identity. This is simply not what an encyclopedia does, and for good reason. Patience is a virtue, especially if you intend on being the most trusted source of information.Griswaldo (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

To echo some of Chzz's points, within the general frame I outlined above, a good example of current misinformation, that is at this point in time completely RS policy compliant, is the claim that Breivik is a "fundamentalist Christian." This was one of the earliest and most characteristic characterizations of Breivik in the news media, but it is completely inaccurate. Just from what I have read in the news about his specific views and from segments of his manifesto that I have browsed online this seems like a very misleading claim to say the least. He appears to be making a strong identification between Christianity and European culture and not to be particularly interested in theology, scripture or religious belief (in fact he described himself as a "moderate" Christian). Islam is not posing a particularly religious threat to him, but a cultural one. Now, I will bet my house on the fact that in due time this will be adequately corrected by the media, by books, and by other publications, but for now we, a reference source, are publishing this claim very prominently. It just seems like something we ought not to be doing.Griswaldo (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not our fault that media outlets are in a bit of a frenzy at the moment, and there's some bad info floating around out there. In case you guys haven't noticed, we're pretty good at ferreting that stuff out. Our article is certainly better than the information from most sources, and is at least equal to that which is available though the best outside sources (from which the majority of our article is drawn from). I honestly don't understand the desire for there not to be an article here, considering that our article is far from doing harm, and that us not having an article would likely drive many people to the sources reporting exactly the things that you guys find to be problematic.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

By wading into the "frenzy"--attempting to document an event in real-time--we are accruing our own share of "fault". Wikipedia is not a news organization. "Our article is certainly better than the information from most sources" -- This is something a news organization would say. How can an encyclopedia be "better than" its sources? We are not part of the 24-hour news fray, yet we are acting as if we are. It is not our responsibility to improve news coverage, nor is it our responsibility to document everything erroneously deemed newsworthy.  Chickenmonkey  19:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the frenzy is the problem, or NOT news either. In this case there's a sizable group of editors on that article who must have him be or not be various types Christian, Zionist, etc. All the frenzy has done is allow an unlimited number of articles to be cherry picked from. It's mostly a NPOV issue. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is cherry picking going on. In my view, when we attempt to document current events--without allowing them and their details to properly mature--it is bound to result in such conjecture and syntheses, because that is all that exists. When our sources have not even been given the opportunity to accurately report on the event (before we begin documenting it), how can we be expected to write an accurate encyclopedic article? This should take even higher precedence, when we are dealing with living persons.  Chickenmonkey  21:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, OK. We'll just have to agree to disagree then (from my end at least). I think that you're being extremist here (along with a few other people), but that's fine. I don't pretend that the article is perfect as is, but I don't think that there's anything seriously wrong with that either. It'll get better; flapping our arms about the problems in the meantime isn't going to help anything.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is exactly that at this stage in the development of the story our policies, on their face, cannot counteract the cherry picking. We can clearly see that it is WP:UNDUE but cannot prove it by showing that the cherry picked sources are not representative of the the mainstream analytical (or factual for that matter) narrative surrounding the event. There is no such mainstream narrative yet. That's exactly the problem.Griswaldo (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Arin Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article has borderline notability, per WP:FILMMAKER. Most sources focus on Claudia Ciesla, who was hired for his movie. Additionally, they seem to be gossip articles. Primary author is User:Ananyapaul, who (per the article) is his wife. I'm not sure where to go from here. Perhaps AfD would be the best option, but I thought I'd bring this here for a second opinion.  Office of Disinformation  15:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Such a messy article. I've trimmed and redone it some, but it still has many problems. Not sure about notability, which is, of course, a threshold issue. I will look at it again and have put it on my watch list, but I don't have time to do anything more today.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I still believe the article has only borderline notability though.  Office of Disinformation  12:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Suh Nam Pyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I would like to report libellous claims put up on The Article : Nam Pyo Suh.

It has a "Controversy" section that lists a series of events that are not of direct intervention by the subject.

Though there are some who would like to blame things on this one individual, the claim seems too far fetched of relation to the subject that I believe it should not be put on the biography until proven clearly that he had clearly and irreconcilably committed direct action to do with those events. And these claims are based on internet articles in Korean language that are not proven to be absolutely true and which would prevent many readers from recognizing how much of those claims are truly based on verifiable sources.

As a Master of Translation of English and Korean Languages, I've reviewed the translation and corrected most of them according to the cited articles, it still seems too distantly related to the concerned individual and they have potential to defame the subject.

Please consider and remove/properly revise the section in question in accordance with the policy on Biographies of living persons.

Thank you.

Clampee (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the two sections that were unreferenced or poorly referenced. The article is in dire need of some third party references - the sole reference to his KAIST bio doesn't is insufficient. – ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see, Thank you. Would one from MIT.edu do? Clampee (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Significant coverage in the press or journals would be better. – ukexpat (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Folks, more eyes on this please. I have been discussing on my talk page, but the current stuff about student suicides seems completely unbalanced and WP:UNDUE to me. And I don't speak Korean so I cannot assess the sources. Thoughts? – ukexpat (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I trimmed out all the claims that he is responsible for peoples suicides - they should take responsibility for their own actions - and trimmed a bit more - if thee suicide stuff is added it should be added at the school article and not the BLP at least minimizing any possible guilt by association issues and policy violations. I left the IP a link to this thread for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a small comment about this in the parent article also - KAIST#Controversy - Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Wade Sanders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wade_Sanders&action=historysubmit&diff=441617184&oldid=441616633

The diff cited above is being repeatedly added to the article, despite not referencing any reliable sources. All of the references cited refer back to one forum post on a personal web site that makes an unsubstantiated reference to an article in The Navy Times that no one has proved exists or ever existed. Until this claim can be substantiated with a reliable citation, this could be considered libel.

The base forum post being used as the source for all related articles and blog entries is: http://www.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=179944&sid=a751c24c0d07cf22a148a45bb299b69d — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benace (talk • contribs) 23:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Both of the "reliable" sources cited point back to the blog and are therefore derivative. I removed the material with an explanation. Someone should be able to find an actual reliable source for this sort of thing; otherwise, it doesn't belong. And even if a source is found, it doesn't deserve its own subsection. It could come right after the sentence that says he was awarded the Silver Star.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There are more sources for this than just the two referenced above. Sources that do not link back to the SwiftVets website including Politico and The Washington Examiner. ZHurlihee (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Both of those seem to be citing the SwiftVets website. I searched Navy Times website, which seems to have a robust archive, and found no mention of this. I also checked the Proquest newspaper archive and there's no mention there either. This might be a hoax.   Will Beback  talk  00:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I've written to the author's email as listed on the SwiftVets version, asking her to confirm the story.   Will Beback  talk  00:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There's now a Fox story published just a few hours ago that doesn't cite the blog. It's probably good enough to insert the material, although not in its own section. See here. What do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

And now the Navy Times itself. See here. That's enough for me. I will edit the article accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I don't know why there was such a delay, but it's there now.   Will Beback  talk  01:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone is pushing a POV here by trying to hide this information, I believe. The Secretary of the Navy PERSONALLY signed the order stripping the guy of his bogus medal. Do you two guys claim that did not happen? Or is there a right-wing conspiracy afoot here.

I am really upset at this total waste of time on a pointless, false disagreement. You are being disagreeable to be disagreeable.  General Zukov  16:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by General Zukov (talk • contribs)

FYI - NEVER in the entire history of the United States has a Silver Star award been revoked. That is why this is such a hugly, big deal. Not even Timothy McVay's star was revoked.  General Zukov  17:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by General Zukov (talk • contribs)

The problematic material was reinserted. Zukov labeled my edit as "vandalism". There was a brief edit war between Zukov and another editor. Zukov has been posting wholly uncivil comments on the Talk page. I have restored the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Information about his coaching the Amerks is not connected with an official press release or public appointment. The date of appointment referenced is in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cschiffner (talk • contribs) 02:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the article and added a ref for the content mentioned above.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Okay, my question I originally asked on the reliable sources noticeboard, and I was redirected to here. Basically, I was told that if an author is reliable, self-published material from them can be used in a BLP, as long as it is about what that particular author, mentioned by name, said in regard to the subject of the BLP article. What wasn't determined was whether the two authors in question satisfy basic requirements for reliability in their field, and that is why I was redirected to here.

The first author, Johannes Jonsson, has written for Christian music magazine HM Magazine (examples: [6], [7]), and both his self-published website, Metal for Jesus!, and The Metal Bible, the creation of which Jonsson coordinated, have been mentioned in academic literature: [8] pg.2 and 6).

The second author, Matt Morrow, has also worked for HM Magazine, including writing reviews ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13]) and conducting interviews ([14]).

Both of these authors would be used in articles dealing with heavy metal music, and especially with Christian metal in particular.--3family6 (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Senior Career and National Team side statistics have completely fictional information . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanempire295 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Steve Levicoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Apparent malicious vandalism by an IP account [15] Bill Huffman (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. If I was an admin I would block - Special:Contributions/75.92.110.97 they are a vandal only. He was blocked one week for vandalizing the same BLP in May. Off2riorob (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps consideration should be given to semi-protecting the article? Bill Huffman (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see enough vandalism to semi protect, its just one user - if he does it again we can request his editing privileges are restricted for a while. Off2riorob (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

This individual is a politician in South Carolina. Information from a political opinion blog has been referenced in an attempt to purposefully paint the politician in an unfavorable and misleading way.  The political organization that runs the blog has one of their staffers add this information and then cite their opinion blog as the reference.  The staffer, Carolina cotton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been reported as a vandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJ1995 (talk • contribs) — EricJ1995 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

A content dispute is not vandalism. EricJ1995 and Carolina cotton shouldn't call each others "vandals" in their edit summaries, and should avoid edit warring. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Joe Rogan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see Joe Rogan#Needs restructuring; there's a few concerns with this BLP, and some help from your good selves would be most welcome. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  22:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

user:Jokestress continues to add erroneous/misleading material about me (and my colleagues) to WP pages.

• The current instance is her erroneous claim that "The term homosexual transsexual has been promoted by psychologists including Ray Blanchard and James Cantor since 1989 as part of Blanchard's transsexualism typology".[16]

• Although she changed "promoted" to "used"[17], the statement is still incorrect and must be removed. (I wasn't even in this field in 1989. I have an easily documented history of using multiple terminologies, not just the terminology Jokestress falsely attempts to associate with me.)

• user:Jokestress maintains off-wiki attack sites spreading other misinformation about me and other scientists who disagree with her views. Indeed, her harassment of scientists, and even of their children, has become vivid enough so as to be mentioned in the NYTimes.

What's the best way to handle both the immediate BLP problem and the long-term, slow-burning one?

Although I have long maintained on my user page this pledge not to edit the historically problematic articles, I have not been able to convince user:Jokestress to hold herself to the same standard.

— James Cantor (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As someone familiar with the long and passionate dispute between these two, I must state that it is highly inappropriate for Jokestress to edit Cantor's Wikipedia biography or other information about him...just as it would be if Cantor were to edit hers, Andrea James, or information about her. They have been cautioned against doing so more than once. Flyer22 (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record: Jokestress' edit was not on the page about me (James Cantor), but was an edit to Androphilia and gynephilia, on which she named me and adding incorrect information about my record. This has occurred in the context of the proposed deletion of that page or merger into Sexual orientation.— James Cantor (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the content you have specifically complained about. diff - If User:Jokestress is really keeping attack sites about you she should stop editing content about you here, she has a clear conflict of interest/inability to edit from a NPOV position - I would also like to see User:Jokestress voluntarily repay your declaration and stop editing content related to you on wikipedia. If not and the patterns continue, the WP:ANI might be a better place to report in future. It says in the Newyorktimes article that User:Jokestress went so far as to " download images from J. Michael Bailey's Web site of his children, taken when they were in middle and elementary school, and posted them on her own site, with sexually explicit captions that she provided."NYT article - that she should have done that off wiki and that she is the main contributor to that persons wikipedia BLP is incredulous. She is clearly unable to edit the subject neutrally, I think she should be topic banned. I suggest if she refuses to voluntarily stop editing your BLP and Mr Baileys you should take a little time to write a complaint, include diffs of any policy/NPOV violations/misrepresentation of sources and report the user at WP:ANI Off2riorob (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Off2riorob. Of course, I agree with everything you said. There have been multiple AN/I (and other) reports over the long history. Although I would entirely support and contribute to any discussion of the problem, if I were the one to actually initiate it, it would quickly get interpreted/distracted by being called my personal grudge, rather than an external view.— James Cantor (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur with off2rio to the extent that I think there is no need for ani. Everything has been discussed often enough and long enough. This is considered an administrative board, and I will topic ban her from editing about you and Bailey in any article if this happens again, and block if there is continuation beyond that. Naturally, this goes for your editing about her as well. I have warned her. DGG ( talk ) 15:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The text you left at User_talk:Jokestress#BLPN_- could be interpreted as an interaction ban or prohibiting Jokestress from acknowledging James Cantor as an editor, since typing "James Cantor (talk · contribs) added this text to this article, and I disagree with it" on a talk page would be an "edit referring to James Cantor". Your note here suggests that you meant only that Jokestress should not mention Cantor in the mainspace.

I don't have an opinion about what would be best, but a clarification now might save grief later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to clarify. I am referring to article space. We normally do not restrict talk p. suggestions unless the situation is even worse than the present one. My view applies equally to all parties. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

A question: Have Cantor and Blanchard used the term? Nowhere does he clearly state that they haven't used the term. James' point #2 conceeds a partial retraction of point #1. James' point #3 is off-wiki, and so irrelevant to BLP except as an attempt to, as James would put it, poison the well. James' response to point #2 hinges on where one puts parentheses (unless Blanchard was also not in the field in 1989.) Now, if Cantor and Blanchard have not used the term in question, then the edit is wrong and should be removed. Whether one should be tarred and feathered for falsely attributing the use of a term is debatable.

This leaves us with one or two simple questions that may decide this matter: James, have you used the term, 'homosexual transsexual,' and has Blanchard? A simple yes or no will suffice. If yes, then Jokestress' statement is true. If no, just say so. (That action was taken before this question was asked casts some doubt on the neutrality of the actor.) A "no" would then place the burden on someone else to find some place where James Cantor has used the term (e.g. the Archives of Sexual Behavior).

Regarding Androphilia and gynephilia, we should note that auto- androphilia and auto- gynephilia are included under the title Blanchard's transsexualism typology. As a result, the Androphilia and gynephilia article is one that Cantor probably should not be editing, much less attempting to delete. BitterGrey (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I want to point out the danger of cherry-picking. In anyone's extensive work on a subject over a period of time, it is usually possible to find some contradictory or un-representative statements. Our role is to report people's work and opinions, not try to hunt for their errors--unless these exceptional statements or errors have been the subject of significant reliable neutral commentary. Science is not a duel to the death where one fault causes disaster. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I, and I suspect many others, wouldn't consider use of the term a scientific failing. Of course, scientific accuracy isn't the issue in this particular discussion; just whether or not they used the term. Simple. I'm still waiting for a yes or a no on that. BitterGrey (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it matters. One could "use" the term in a statement like "Smith says that we ought to use the term androphilia in this situation, but I think that homosexual is more appropriate". Is that really "using" the term?

More importantly, a laundry list of people who have ever used the term is a basic WP:SYNTH violation: you may not string together a bunch of primary sources to advance the position that the term is being used by reliable sources. If we want to make that point, then we need a source that directly says that the term is used/accepted/preferred/whatever.

So we could easily be looking at a situation in which pointing out Cantor's use (if any) is a serious misrepresentation of his actual position and a clear-cut violation of our most basic content policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Or we could be looking at yet another smokescreen. Cantor is accusing Jokestress of falsely claiming that Cantor used a term. I understand why you and others wish to complicate this. If James Cantor used the term, then Jokestress's claim isn't false. This would be a 'yes' answer to my question, and it would mean that the accusation of a BLP violation was pointless (at best) from the start. On the other hand, if James says that he didn't use the term, it would be a simple matter to show that he in fact has, as Jokestress already did.

So James Cantor, have you used the term? Yes or No? BitterGrey (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting for an answer. Comments like James Cantor's "I use 'homosexual transsexual'..." seem to make it quite clear that he does indeed use the term, and was falsely accusing Jokestress. BitterGrey (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point: "use" does not mean "promote" (Jokestress's original and false claim), and in the context of the actual sentence, "use" is highly likely to be misinterpreted as "support".

You "used" the term homosexual transsexual in the sentence above. Would you like to be singled out as a key example of someone who uses that term, in a sentence like "BitterGrey, an activist for sexual minorities, uses the term homosexual transsexual, which is generally considered offensive and derogatory by the people it refers to"? Would that "100% factual" sentence fairly represent your beliefs about the appropriateness of that term? Or would that sentence give the typical reader a false impression of your support for that term? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the "promote" was retracted and replaced with "used" before the BLP violation was filed here - see James' second point up at the start. "Use" does mean "use." And yes, I have now used the term. If I now accused WhatamIdoing of a BLP violation for having written that I used the term, that would be preposterous. That is, unless I or my friends engaged in some doublespeak to obscure things. Of course, that is pretty much what James Cantor did. BitterGrey (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

But would it be a fair and complete representation of your support for the offensive term?

To give a different example: if someone names a specific racial slur in a speech entirely dedicated to deploring it, are we being fair and complying with the NPOV policy by saying "____ actually said the n-word in public"? It would be "100% factual"—but I think it would be 100% misleading, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, at the time this was filed, it was not "promote", not "support," but "use." Whom are you hoping to confuse? BitterGrey (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I tried to remove information that was sourced only to the e-book published by this person [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] but my edits were reverted [23].

I think it is entirely inappropriate for us to be producing OR comments based solely on his "manifesto" e-book; this is a recurring problem on this BLP. (As opposed to elements of the lengthy tome that the media has decided to cover).

I won't repeat my edits, but I do hope others can check it and see what they think.  Chzz  ►  01:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's clear that he wrote the manifesto, and so the manifesto is verifiably consisting of claims made by him. Particularly where they are about himself, per WP:ABOUTSELF we're allowed to accept those.Teapeat (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::I agree with Chzz. We should be reporting what secondary and tertiary reliable sources say about this manifesto, not engaging in WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. We can use the manifesto to back claims made in secondary sources *if* needed for verifiability (ie someone says a source is misrepresenting the manifesto), but we cannot engage in research or commentary ourselves, and since this is a BLP, we should refrain from publishing anything that a RS has not published. Readers have a link to the manifesto which they can read if they choose to.--Cerejota (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

OR is when the editors of the Wikipedia join information from multiple sources together to synthesise a position; but none of those diffs involve doing that. You're also oversimplifying selfpub/aboutself. In aboutself we are permitted to use self published sources in certain situations. The Wikipedia is verifiability over truth, and we're allowed to use self published sources to prove that somebody claimed something, provided it's not self serving. And these cases do not seem to be.Teapeat (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you are misreading the policy, and in particular, the word "or"! Note, Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material ...

The document is not a reliable source.

These claims fall into the 'new analysis' part; nobody is talking about novel synthesis.

all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source.

Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material.

Please, re-read the policy.  Chzz  ►  02:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The information is very clearly original research. The information about his mother and childhood is something that could potentially be used from the manifesto (though there are probably more reliable sources available for the information), but the information added to the writings section, with the quotes and all, is information that is being inferred from the primary source and is not being given by a secondary source. Thus, it is original research and should be removed. Silverseren^C 03:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is a duplicate of Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik#Manifesto_as_a_source_and_other_notes_on_sourcing. Short summary of my thoughts: Using the manifesto as source is not wrong per se (which is exactly what the policy states), and the active editor community has already demonstrated resilence in editing out improper synthesis of the primary source in the article. Secondary sources for many simple facts (like whether he ran for the city council in 2003, and what he thought about it) are not yet available. Although I admit that editors should use caution when using the manifesto as source, forbidding its use entirely, when such is not mandated by the policy, demonstrates a priori bias against the community. To mitigate potential abuse, I suggest adding an editnotice on the page, notifying the editors of the primary source policy, but adding it requires administrator intervention. --hydrox (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This policy is relevant as well and specifically allows for such sources: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. As with any primary source, strong caveats against original interpretation, original synthesis, and cherry-picking apply. Peter G Werner (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I take the view that there should be an a priori bias against the community. Contrary to popular belief, editors aren't reliable sources so there's no reason to trust their handling of primary sources. It's a sensible approach for an encyclopedia to take. Any sampling of a primary source by an editor here is cherrypicking and a form of analysis based on what the editor personally believes to be a significant and meaningful part of the whole that conveys something the editor, not an RS, wants to convey. The editor selects something for a reason and yet the editor isn't a reliable source. If something hasn't been published by an RS yet there is no need to include it. This edit is a pretty typical example of what happens when editors are allowed to sample primary sources. Editors see whatever they want to see in the source and sample whatever they want to sample because it is meaningful to them personally. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

To consider the "manifesto" to be a reliable source seems crazy.  Chzz  ►  19:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Only if you forget that reliability is context-dependent. Every single book, no matter how false its contents, is a reliable WP:PRIMARY source for questions like "what words are at the top of page six?" or "what date does the copyright page give?" or "what is this book's title?" Editors may use the book as a reliable source for a summary of the book's contents, exactly like they may use any novel ever published to write a summary of the plot. This is WP:NOTOR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not a published book - and it is a verifiable fact that he didn't write large chunks of it, it was copied and plagiarised. So to even claim "he wrote that he is a such-and-such" isn't accurate. Unfortunately, in desperation to write about him, a lot of other "reliable sources" are ignoring that, and printing all kinds of claims - often contradictory.  Chzz  ►  22:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

vertott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dominique Strauss-Kahn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, just dropped by for a quick visit, thought I would flag this up as have to go and do stuff in RL.
This user has decided that despite weeks of discussion as to the relevance of naming the maid (whose name has been known for weeks), as per WP guidelines, for example WP:BLP1E or WP:BLPNAME, that because she's given an interview we must out her.
Also, there is an article on a Senegalese writer with a similar name which this editor disingenuously added a redirect to, and then claimed on the main DSK talk page "Wikipedia already names her, if you go to her page XXXX it is clear who she is", yes, well, a fine example of circular reasoning there. Some eyes would be appreciated. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 10:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Opinion: I had a look, and think the person is a non-public figure that should not be named on the article, per presumption in favour of privacy, and because her name is irrelevent to both those articles. Currently, she isn't named. If it's added, I suggest removing it per WP:NPF / WP:BLPNAME, and protecting if necessary.

So, I agree with Captain Screebo - these policies are here for exactly these cases, and should be enforced.  Chzz  ►  10:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The individual is naming herself. Wikipedia is not uncovering some fact that would otherwise lay hidden, obscure, or not easily accessed. This reliable source serves as an indication that the presumption-of-privacy argument does not have bearing here. An interview given is for the direct purpose of disseminating information. It defies logic that Wikipedia is going to assume that the individual does not want her name to be known. Wikipedia is not the only source of this information, thus no practical purpose is served in omitting the individual's name. Omitting her name seems like sanctimonious posturing to me. Bus stop (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I still think a case can be made not to name her as she is a one event private person and only notable as the alleged victim of a crime and it specifically adds nothing of value to the readers understanding of the allegations/trial anyway. Her simple name is irrelevant. A case can be considered that the alleged victim has been forced into giving an interview in an attempt to defend her name. The BBC are reporting the interview - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14271114 but unless you want to add details about her life story (all of which would have BLP issues imo} simply adding her name imo is of questionable added value to the reader. Off2riorob (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ooh là là, here we go again, just to add that there is an article about this latest development on the Orange.fr website where they do not name the woman even if the people in the comments section know her name and name her.

So, this would appear to be an editorial decision on the part of Orange to not spread her name all over the place, as would seem to be the consensus here on Wikipedia, i.e. editorial policy versus if it's out there let's publish it. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 12:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, anyone fancy cleaning up the talk pages of these two articles as BLP policy applies there too? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 12:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we should leave the discussions as her name is all over the press, discussion it on the talkpage is imo fine (I may just change the header) - and archive after the discussion ends. Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok saw that, good to go, must really get off wp now ;-) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 13:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sure - I'm not bothered about it being on the talk page; I wouldn't bother with revdel or OS or anything. It's just, quite simply, I don't see an advantage in adding it to the article - that's all, really. She's not a notable person.  Chzz  ►  13:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

CaptainScreebo, the result of "weeks of discussion" seem to be totally irrelevant, now that the situation has reversed itself. We are no longer protecting her privacy by suppressing her name, when she's very publicly gone on national TV.

Here's what WP:BLP says: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it"

Her name has now been widely disseminated (cbs newsreuterswashington postnew york times, etc.) So that restriction clearly doesn't apply.

" … Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value."

And she's directly involved, so this other restriction clearly doesn't apply either.

I doesn't matter if people think she's not "notable" enough or think giving her name doesn't add value, if she's directly involved and her name is widely disseminated then by wikipedia policy we should include her name. And, that's exactly what we should do here. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

A quick comment, Bob, I posted here because one user decided that weeks of discussion were irrelevant, in one of my edit commentaries I left the summary 'please wait for BLP consensus', if there is consensus to name her, then fine go ahead, one editor is not consensus. That's all, to get more eyes on it and see what people think. I'm in France and she's been all over the TV, but as some point out "what encyclopaedic value does it add?" Not much, IMHO, but she is now named. So be it. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• - posting this here to add to the discussion - User:PatGallacher has added this to the trial article diff and this to the article about a writer with the same name. I have reverted them both - one for original research and that discussion is ongoing and consensus is unclear and the other as it is part of the reverted addition to the trial article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I was the person who "disingenously" added the redirect to the article on the writer with a similar name, I did so because it struck me that this was no longer an issue since the maid has clearly gone public, see BBC report [24] there is likely to be more in similar vein over the next few days. PatGallacher (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No one has suggested you "disingenuously" added the redirect to the article on the writer with a similar name. I certainly am not suggesting you made either of the edits in anything but good faith. Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• No you're not @ Pat, I was referring to this, [25], where Vertott in fact added this back (originally contributed by an IP 2 edits earlier) while claiming on a tp, "we must name her, there's a WP article about her anyways". That is what I found disingenuous. FYI :=) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Are people reading what they write before they post it ? How can Nafissatou Diallo have any expectation of privacy when she is the one that has gone out and given the interview and decided to have her name published? The claim that she still is a "non-public figure" also fails to stand up, the fact that an interview she gave for Newsweek in the US was reported by the BBC in England is testament to that. The claim that "no benefit to the understanding of this article in giving the name" also fails as how can it be beneficial to withhold the name of one side of this case but openly discuss the other, it leads to an unbalanced article. There no longer seams to be any valid reason not to included it now she has herself gone public. To me this appears to be double standards, if this had been in any other conthry Wikiepedia would be leading the charge against suppressing her name under similar circumstances. VERTott 00:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Posting in one place is usually plenty at wikipedia, cut and copy posting your comment at multiple locations is not quite spam but if you were to post it at three locations it would be. As for your comment - I for one (and I know there are others) do not care what country anywhere is and suppression is far different from using editorial control and erring on the side of caution in regard to such a person to not add the valueless name of a one event alleged victim of crime. Its not so much a position of privacy as being basically apart from this alleged victim of crime, a private person. Off2riorob (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Rob, you are clearly very passionate about protecting the privacy of this one person. However, now that she has gone very public with her name, there seems to be absolutely _no_ violation of BLP by including her name in the article. Claiming that you personally don't think that it add enough value does _not_ mean that it violates BLP. And, if there is no violation of BLP. it would seem that you really need to stop your reverts. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

On Tuesday her photo appeared on the front page of the Guardian, an important British newspaper, accompanied by this article where she is named and interviewed [26]. As she has gone public it's difficult to see what privacy there is to defend, it becomes increasingly artificial to avoid adding it. The fact that she has gone public is surely of some note. We have the additonal problem that she has a similar name to an African writer, it's difficult to see how we can clarify that they are not the same person without naming her. Avoiding adding her name means keeping an eye on 4 articles: DSK's biog, the article on the assault case, the article on her name (currenty a redirect to the African writer) and the African writer with a similar name. People shouldn't pre-judge what other people's motives might be for adding her name, in my view this is now legitimate encyclopedic material. PatGallacher (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I got Newsweek in the mail yesterday, and she was no the cover. Her television interview was watched by millions. She couldn't try any harder to raise her profile. There's no reason not to name her. If we could ask her, she probably request an article on herself. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please try to reach consensus here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob drobbs (talk • contribs) 17:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Editors are edit warring over tags on the Glenn Beck article. A concern is that it is recentism and that led to the first edit war (that I was not involved in). The upcomming edit war is over NPOV (which I am involved in). Basically, Beck said something offensive and it got picked up in the press. He compared the kids being massacred in Norway to kids attending a Hitler youth camp. Pretty damn offensive. However, Beck as clear that he was against the terrorist action. The article does not make that clear. The ambiguity could easily lead the reader to believe that his only take on the matter was that the kids were deserving victims. I made it clear [27] why I put the tag in and what I thought needed to be done to remove it. Since it is a BLP I wil continue to revert with no regard for 3/rr. I believe

• The tag should be restored immediately.
• User:AndyTheGrump should be blocked for subverting POV on a BLP by edit warring over a tag and ignoring talk
• User:Helvetica Should sikmply be warned about BLP, POV, and NPA since he is newCptnono (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

″Basically, Beck said something offensive and it got picked up in the press... Pretty damn offensive. However, Beck as clear that he was against the terrorist action. The article does not make that clear″. Nope. The article did exactly that, before Cptnono, reverted it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely disregard. Andy fixed it for the most part and I did not realize that it added the required line.[28] I am modifying the line.Cptnono (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't 'fix it'. It wasn't broken before Cptnono and I arrived. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

While I don't believe that every display of egregious idiocy by a public figure needs to be, or should be, documented on Wikipedia, this one drew attention from across the political spectrum and should be reported, without undue emphasis on whatever after-the-fact contortions or apologetics Beck went through to try to cover himself, and without an interminable litany of comments restating the obvious point of the comment's unspeakability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Fjordman is an anonymous online blogger. Some reports that are mentioning the blogger have been published following the 2011 Norway attacks, all (to my knowledge) focusing on a potential link between Fjordman, Anders Behring Breivik, and the attacks. There is disagreement on (a) the use of self-published sources in the text (see WP:ABOUTSELF), and (b) whether WP:BLP1E applies in this case. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fjordman (3rd nomination).  Cs32en Talk to me  14:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

See previous section on this noticeboard regarding the BLP issues, article discussion page (multiple sections) and article history. I believe several issues are being conflated: (1) the amount of weight to give the Breivik connection (the topic of the previous section here and of previous discussion on the article talk page; (2) notability of the subject (the topic of the AfD, and I note that in addition to sources previously present in the article--which has survived 2 prior AfDs--there have been for some days now references to newspaper articles which discuss Fjordman in some detail and are not only about Breivik's admiration for him); (3) whether the article relies overmuch on Fjordman's own writings (and on other blogs?), a concern which does not seem to me to be appropriate to this noticeboard, and in any case I disagree with the poster here and with the editor who has been radically shortening the article to eliminate them. In any event, I started a new section on the article talk page in addition to commenting at the AfD; but I sincerely hope that my efforts to keep the discredited rumor out of the article and to avoid undue weight on Breivik in the article have not given the impression there is a lack of material on Fjordman and that the article thereby fails notability. That would be an unfortunate irony. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Geoffrey Giuliano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I reverted some rather, um, questionable edits on Jim Nabours by User:Oldsmobile. I noticed that the user had edited Geoffrey Giuliano quite a bit. That article is a mess. I've never heard of Giuliano, but his article seems to be stuffed full of uncited trivia and poorly cited allegations. I don't have time to look at it more closely right now, but if anyone wants to do a serious pruning, please do. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Continuous sectainian vandalism being added to the biography of David Odonkor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Odonkor&action=historysubmit&diff=441883565&oldid=441883263 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clashrock (talk • contribs) 15:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for a week due to the large amount of vandalism it has recently been a target of. I also reverted back to the last stable copy - it will likely need a thorough check to make all of the vandalism and BLP violations have been scrubbed. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Matt Ward (game designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Matt Ward is the target of frequent trolling and vandalism; the article itself is a product of trolling. Any libelous edits removed are replaced within a week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyvirn91 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the page and left a warning notice for the unregistered editor responsible for the latest contentious edits to the page. Given that the repeated addition of (very) weakly sourced negative material goes back as far as May this year at the least, I'm also going to ask at WP:RFPP for the page to be temporarily protected from being edited by unregistered users. (Note that, if granted, this will also prevent Wyvirn91 from editing the page until your account is at least four days old and has at least ten edits).

Since none of the persons adding the disputed content created a Wikipedia account, the history of the article will tell you the IP addresses used to make the changes and the exact times of the changes - see Help:Page history for more details. However, please be aware that Wikipedia has a strict no legal threats policy on Wikipedia itself, and therefore any suggestion, implication or discussion of legal action regarding Wikipedia or other contributors, is likely to lead to being blocked from editing until the threats are withdrawn or the legal action resolved. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

An untrue and potentially libellous piece of information is included in Tim Cope's biography. This should be removed as soon as possible. The information states that Tim lives in Australia with his companion tigens and that they are expecting their first child Tim's dog is called Tigon, he was given to Tim in Mongolia by nomad friends. Tim considers Tigon to be the real star of the film 'On the trail of Ghengis Khan'. Tim is not expecting a child. Tigon the dog is reported by Tim to have fathered a number of pups across the steppes.

I've removed what I presume to be the problematic sentence from the lead of the article, and left a note for the editor that added it. In general, where information clearly violates Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, you can edit the page directly yourself to remove it, with an edit summary explaining why. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Robert Petkoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This request for eyes on the article Robert Petkoff was archived before any action was posted on resolving it. Notice has been been posted that it may require clean up - it appears to meet the criteria for living persons article - could someone please take a look before I edit/add to this article? Thanks! Cwands (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The article looks promotional and more like a CV than a biography. A lot of the material needs to be justified by reliable sources. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you advise what should be revised for this article? Most of the material has extensive references and cites for verification - I am unclear what else I can do to meet the standard for a living person biography. Thanks for your help. Cwands (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Our article about the highly successful, but highly controversial, Singaporean celebrity blogger Xiaxue has an extensive history of BLP violations, ranging from blatant libellous vandalism to attempts to skew facts to put her in a bad light (such as an "Impact of Xiaxue on youths in Singapore" section) to insertion of false information (such as that she had died). The subject has publicly complained about the state of her Wikipedia biography. I have rewritten the article, but unregistered editors continue to vandalise it. Please check that my rewrite is BLP-compliant, then monitor the article for vandalism and BLP violations. Long-term semi-protection may be appropriate. I also filed a peer review to prepare the article for a GA nomination; constructive feedback would be appreciated. Thank you. 谢谢. Terima kasih. Arigato. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to FloNight for permanently semi-protecting the article! That would really help its pursuit of GA status. Anyone else reading this can still help by checking the article for BLP compliance and.commenting at its peer review --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a dispute on Bradley Manning about whether he hold British citizenship or not. User:Auerfeld and I have presented solid evidence, including references to British nationality law, that show that Bradley Manning holds British citizenship by descent. Two other editors hold strongly to the opinion that he is not in fact a British citizen. One of these two editors is an administrator and this administrator asked on the discussion page to not change the infobox again after they reverted it to read that Manning was only an American citizen. I consider that this user was speaking with the authority of an administrator when making this request. Please see the current discussion page and discussion page archives for Bradley Manning to see all of this for your self. Both sides have maintained civility during the disagreement. We are at an impasse. Since the evidence so strongly favours the position that he has British citizenship whereas we are unable to add that to the page, I am referring the matter here. Robert Brockway (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

To help define (if possible) the controversy, his infobox has had both "American" and "American & British" listed in the Nationality line. The Citizenship line has been largely untouched. Moreover, his legal citizenship (and nationality) status is not an issue with regard to the court-martial charges and the military courts/authorities do not need to make a determination. (The "citizenship" issue arose, in part, because certain parties wanted the British government to do something about the conditions of imprisonment -- not that the US military could or would respond.) So, with these factors in mind, perhaps a two track listing in the infobox can be used. Something like this: Nationality -- "American". Citizenship -- "Dual: American and British". (This assumes we, as WP editors, can reach a conclusion about the legal question of citizenship.) --S. Rich (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC) PS: I have inserted my proposed solution into the article infobox.15:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Some confusion here, I think. In the case of democracies, citizenship and nationality are essentially synomymous: Bradley is a British citizen as well as an American citizen, ergo he is a dual national. Nationality is the term more often used in international law. In Bradley's case, an individual with dual British and American citizenship - and therefore dual British and American nationality - is awaiting courts-martial in the United States. The fact that legal process is taking place in one state has no impact on his citizenship status in, or nationality of, the other - the determination of this is solely in the hands of the state concerned (ie. the United Kingdom). Bradley's status as a citizen of the United Kingdom has been confirmed by a Government Minister in the House of Commons and has been reported as such by numerous secondary sources (I've listed 6 on the talk page). As such, the proposed solution can only confuse a situation which is, in reality, rather straightforward.

It is certainly the case, incidentally, that action on the British front - which resulted in two separate representations being made to the US on a diplomatic level - contributed to Bradley Manning being moved out of solitary confinement at the beginning of May. For this reason, his citizenship status is highly pertinent to his wikipedia entry and I'm not sure why there is confusion about this, since it has been so well reported by multiple sources. Auerfeld (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, can I take issue with this: ″This assumes we, as WP editors, can reach a conclusion about the legal question of citizenship″. This is exactly what we should not be doing. This would constitute WP:OR of the worst kind. If WP:RS reaches a conclusion, or provides an opinion on the matter, we can cite it, but we cannot decide this for ourselves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - this was my understanding of the situation. Given that Bradley's citizenship status has been reported by the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/britain-to-reassert-worries-about-wikileaks-suspect-bradley-mannings-treatment/2011/04/05/AFXo4GlC_story.html), The Guardian (repeatedly), New York Magazine and The Telegraph (among others), my understanding is that this should be sufficient for Wikipedia purposes. Auerfeld (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You are reinforcing my point -- that this "determination" is a legal issue that we should not resolve on our own. I noted that the talk page discussion (and edit war) was sloppy in the sense that the Nationality infobox line was being edited, but the WP discussion revolved around Citizenship. I am trying to point out (inartfully) that when we say "In the case of democracies, citizenship and nationality are essentially synomymous ... ergo ..." we are conducting our own WP:OR and improper synthesis. And why did we get wrapped around the axle in this issue? Largely because sympathizers wanted the British government to intervene and WP RS was presented to reinforce a particular position. --S. Rich (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary: the legal issue has long been resolved and has been reported as such by numerous sources. I am questioning why the Infobox on Bradley Manning's Wikipedia entry does not reflect this. If you would rather the entry listed Bradley as a dual citizen and left nationality out entirely, then that's fine - but to list him solely as being an American national is both innacurate and contrary to what reliable sources are reporting. To the best of my knowledge, there are no references that contradict the argument I am putting forward here (you will note that the WaPo article referenced above specifically talks about David Coombs' statement of February and puts it in context), but there are plenty that support it. If you can find some that put forward the opposing argument, then this discussion would make a little more sense than it does presently.

On this basis, I am going to delete the nationality line in the infobox. You are welcome to frame an argument for Bradley being a British citizen but not a British national if you wish, but I am fairly sure that would fall under WP:OR. Auerfeld (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually there has not been a legal determination of the legal issue by any court of law. (And there probably never will be. E.g., Manning is a person subject to the jurisdiction of the UCMJ, which is federal law enacted by Congress in accordance with the authority provided by the Constitution. The court-martial does not care if he is American, British, Kurdish, Welsh, or Whateverish.) This is a debate regarding which RS should be used to describe Manning, and to justify some sort of inquiry by the British government. For my part, I am perfectly happy if he is described as a dual citizen in the infobox. I was uncomfortable with the ill-defined nature of the discussion and the use of the Nationality line in the infobox. My proposed solution -- to use both lines -- was set forth as a compromise. (And please forgive me for my poorly presented discussion.)--S. Rich (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I nearly made a mention of the terms citizenship and nartionality in my original post here - I should have. While it is true that nationality can mean something other than citizenship in English (many people claim to be of Scotish nationality but British citizenship, for example), in this discussion both sides have been using the terms citizenship and nationality interchangeably.

Re the compromose suggested by Srich, I'd be happy to have his citizenship list as both and his nationality as American in the infobox. Robert Brockway (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If Robert is happy with this compromise so am I - pleased we could reach a resolutiion. Auerfeld (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

NOTE to other contributors -- the issue has returned to Manning's talk page.--S. Rich (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the article talk page, but just noting here for the record that Manning's lawyer explicitly said in February that Manning does not consider himself a British citizen: "There has been some discussion regarding PFC Bradley Manning's citizenship. PFC Manning does not hold a British passport, nor does he consider himself a British citizen. He is an American, and is proud to be serving in the United States Army. His current confinement conditions are troubling to many both here in the United States and abroad. This concern, however, is not a citizenship issue." [29]

Auerfeld (talk · contribs) has said she is leading a British campaign [30] to have him recognized as a British citizen, and therefore wants to add that he is one to the infobox here. She has been advised about COI, 3RR, the lawyer's statement, BLP, and UNDUE. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The point is that Bradley *has* been recognised as a UK citizen for some time - it was the subject of a debate in Parliament, which resulted in actual action on Bradley's behalf. This was back in April so that part of the campaign has been over and done with for quite a while now! I'd be more than happy for someone else to be making the case here, but the point is that you are making a decision to exclude pertinent information that has been verified and widely reported on a basis of your own devising. Is that how Wikipedia is supposed to work? Auerfeld (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you discuss this on the talk page, please, to avoid a forest fire? There is a campaign in the UK to have him accepted as British. You are organizing it. The campaigners have raised it in parliament. The campaigners have asked the British government to intervene on his behalf. BUT (important BUT), Manning himself has said he is not British. He doesn't want to be British. He has not asked the British government to intervene. He was born and raised in America and is serving in the American army, and he has said through his lawyers that that's what he wants to be. You can't make your campaign the voice of Wikipedia or Bradley Manning. Please continue on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'm more than happy to discuss on the talk page (and am), but you're now raising questions about Wikipedia policy on reporting nationality that I have a feeling are going to bring us back here. Bradley Manning's British citizenship has been reported by a number of reputable sources, both in the US and UK (and beyond, actually). Mainstream newspapers like the Washington Post and The Guardian have produced reports that are themselves balanced, taking into account David Coombs' statement and coming to the conclusion that this does not change the legal position as far Bradley Manning's dual citizenship status is concerned. Given that there is no comparable selection of reputable sources making the contrary argument, my feeling is that it is not the job of Wikipedia editors to determine whether or not those judgements are correct.

Essentially, you are arguing that Bradley needs to affirm his british citizenship in order for it to be included in his biographical details. I've looked at the relevant guidelines and cannot see that your argument is supported there: self-identification is required for descriptions that impact on the religious or sexual identity of living persons, or that might put a living subject in a bad light. I cannot see that citizenship/nationality fits into any of those three categories. The Manual of Style for Biography is also clear that citizenship for Wikipedia purposes is to be determined on the basis of the nationality laws of the countries concerned. You do now need to engage with these points, but where you do it is up to you, of course. Auerfeld (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi - the article on Peter Brookes lists two dates of birth - 1943 in the main article and 1953 below the picture. I am pretty sure the former is the correct date of birth: http://www.cartoons.ac.uk/artists/peterbrookes/biography

How does one change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.221.3.17 (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed in this edit. – ukexpat (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Some speculation from bloggers about unsavory associations, with nothing to indicate that he is himself involved in any wrongdoing, keeps popping up in the article (most recently here). Typically added by User:Engleham. There's also some info on the talk page. More eyes on the page could be useful. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph is nothing more than an allegation of guilt by association and I have removed it from the article and from the talk page per WP:BLP. – ukexpat (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Good edit Ukexpat! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I recommend that the autobiographical entry by/of Ephren Taylor be removed from Wikipedia. Large swaths are self-referential, not supported by third-party validation, and, in light of journalistic and legal inquiries regarding his self-promotion and the disgruntled investors who believe he mislead them, this article appears to misuse the exposure of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollie23 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Wade Sanders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An attempt is being made to make the article mainly about the subjects arrest and conviction based on the level of content and citations [31]. I believe this is a pretty extreme example of WP:WEIGHT. ZHurlihee (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• Syed Zakir Hussain Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This BLP is in a very poor state. Most of the unverifiable stuff seems to be positive, admittedly - but, still; it's a mass of info with no footnotes. Help!  Chzz  ►  00:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The solution is to use the referneces at the bottom of the article to provide inline cites for what is referencable, and to remove anything that isn't. You can also fix the language to remove peacock terms and stuff like that. --Jayron32 00:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Nathan Moore (English musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could a couple of editors please review the content at Nathan Moore (English musician)? An editor, possibly the subject, is blanking two sentences regarding a former long term same-sex relationship as well as a soliciting charge. Each statement consists of a single reliably sourced sentence (including BBC News). I pointed the editor to both the article talk page and this noticeboard, however they have chosen to blank the information again without discussion. If it is indeed the BLP subject editing, I can understand why they may not want the information in the article - however I think allowing individuals to blank sourced content that do not like, or perhaps regret, is a slippery slope. It may be best to evaluate the two items being blanked individually; first there is the arrest and fine, which is really a misdemeanor blip in the life of an individual, and secondly there is a long term relationship. Given that it does not appear to be a case of WP:UNDUE, is reliably sourced, and the relationship lasted for over a decade, should it be removed as well? Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think your on the right track about the minor allegation and the misdemeanor - in the BBC article they call the man his partner - is it notable.....he is married to a woman in 2003 and has a child now - if we remove the minor legal infraction do we need to report/is it notable or personal intrusion that he h previously had a partner that was a man? Off2riorob (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Moore shouldn't be editing his own article. The relationship with the man is as notable as anything else about his personal life and should remain. I agree with the "slippery slope" point. I'm getting very tired of article subjects telling Wikipedia what can and can't be in their biographies. Unfortunately, at least in the last endless discussion about Jay Brannan, I believe I was in a minority. But I haven't changed my views on the issue. If it's sufficiently relevant and reliably sourced, it should stay in.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The material should be removed. Aside from the fact that it is gossip and no one should care about this, I find the whole idea of devoting a section to "personal life" as somehow warped. It also looks like it's quite possible that the BBC entertainment piece may be about a crime he didn't commit, another good reason to remove it. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed... once the BBC story is gone, that leaves us with The Sun and some site of unknown provenance that currently doesn't load for me. Not that we should encourage or tolerate people trying to dictate what should be in the articles about them, but the relevance of all this to his notability appears to be about nil. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the relationship after Bbb23 replaced it. That relationship is not notable, or part of his notability. Insisting on reporting it seems closer to personal intrusion that reporting notable details. It does get annoying sometimes dealing with subjects but their concerns and feelings of privacy invasion are considerations imo that a responsible project is able to consider. Moving forward I won't remove it again but if it is considered worthy of inclusion the gaylife cite is dead and I couldn't find it anywhere so I wouldn't replace that and the Sun is unworthy of inclusion so I would only replace the BBC citation.Off2riorob (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to go against consensus here, but relationship information is included in just about every BLP article I've ever looked at that can support it with sources. A relationship is like family - it doesn't have to be related to the person's notability. And we include far more transient relationships than a long-term relationship like this one. Frankly, at the risk of repeating myself, I don't get it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

A relationship, what is notable about it? Off2riorob (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

First, notability isn't the touchstone for content. Second, I thought I explained that it's essentially background information about the person. If relationships aren't relevant, then we should remove all of them, including spouses, partners, etc. Come on, since when do we not report on relationships of the subject, generally in the Early life section (original family) and the Personal life section (spouses and other relationships). Why are we reporting on Moore's marriage to a woman but not on his long-term relationship with a man? So far, he's been married for a shorter time than he was in the relationship with the guy. It makes zero sense. We're just doing it because he doesn't want people to know he was in the relationship. We're not removing it because it isn't relevant.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Bbb23 you seem to be pushing that you want to include it because the subject doesn't want it included. His personal notability doesn't seem such to require a lot of trivia background details of his relationships. Imyop it just seems to be trivia and personal intrusive for no added value. Marriage and children is clearly noteworthy. Are you suggesting that it is with a man that it is notable? Although jonny is married to a woman now and has a young child with his wife, he used to be in a relationship with a man. Off2riorob (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I am pushing not to remove it because the subject doesn't want it included. That's a key difference. Relationships are relationships, whether they are marriages, partnerships, or others that aren't "legal" relationships. I don't see why marriages are any more noteworthy than other relationships. Many marriages don't last, whereas other relationships do. Surely, that matters more than a license conferred by the state. Nor am I saying that the relationship with the man is what makes it "notable". Rather, I'm saying it doesn't matter whether it's with a man or a woman, it's the relationship that is relevant. What you seem to be advocating is that the marriage with the woman is more "notable" than the relationship with the man. That can't be right. What if he divorces his wife and goes into another relationship with a man? What if he comes out as gay and wants us to remove the marriage with the wife from the article? Sigh. What if someone in their personal life used to be a Nazi and then later became a humanitarian. Would we report only on the humanitarian? By not reporting on the relationship with the man, we are taking a point of view, which we shouldn't do, even if it's one advocated by the subject.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Bbb23 here. Known and sourced relationships are noted in other biography articles. In this case, clearly the information is sourced so it should be kept. AFAIK, there is no policy or grounds for removal in this case. So to be clear, for the editors who want the information removed, what exactly are the reasons for removal? If we are removing it because some day the BBC article may no longer be online or we are sympathizing with Moore- those are not grounds for removal. Moreover, notability of the information isn't at issue here. This is a biographical article; therefore, relationship information is relevant.  snaphat ► 15:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't add all personal details about people, especially when they are of minimal note - its a valueless factoid - in the eighties Jonny had a relationship with a man. And? What happened? Why did they split up? What type of "relationship" was it? Some long term relationships are notable and become well known and are clearly worthy of mentioning, this one from details provided so far,imo is not...unless it is because it was with a man that it is notable. - Marriage is always worthy of note as I have seen, relationships as I have seen are not.Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hold on, I am confused here. The Sun story says that Moore's Partner said: "Nathan has been in a gay relationship for 13 years.". The Wiki article says that he is married with a child. I thought the relationship with the PR guy was current. Someone explain what is going on here?  snaphat ► 16:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought he is currently married to a woman with whom he has a child. The Sun article is dated from 2004 - personally I rejected the Sun as a decent citation for such content in a BLP.- what the Sun calls a "gay relationship" the BBC refers to as the man being the subjects "partner." Off2riorob (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a violation, just a request from the subject of the article ([see User talk:Margopera) for us to remove the photo from the article. Personally I don't have any doubt this user is genuinely the subject, although there's no proof for this as yet. The image is correctly licensed, however she claims that it was taken illicitly as photography was forbidden when it was taken (at a session in a public festival). She also pointed out some factual errors in the article which after checking the references (she was right) I have mainly fixed. I don't know what the right thing to do about the photo is though. Aegoceras (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure either, but I did talk to her on User talk:Margopera about her Facebook concerns. She thought the creator of the article might have also created this Facebook page and considers it identity-theft. I explained that Facebook creates these "community pages" automatically from WP biographies, and unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't seem to be able to do anything about it. I must say that these Facebook pages are rather problematic in the case of BLPs despite their somewhat lame small-print disclaimer: "Community Pages are not affiliated with, or endorsed by, anyone associated with the topic." Voceditenore (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm posting to ANI because of potential legal threat concerns, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Marina_Poplavskaya.  Chzz  ►  15:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Re the photo (File:Marina Poplavskaya06.jpg). It was uploaded by someone who has provided a lot of very high quality images at Commons, at least two of which have been Featured Pictures and it's not at all unflattering, in my view. I wonder if the main objection is that it also appears on the pseudo-Facebook page? Voceditenore (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

We could ask her...we could also ask the uploader (via German wikipedia where he seems to be based) about the circumstances the photo was taken, but would it be wise to bring the two together, if there are indeed legal implications? Aegoceras (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The image looks like it was taken at one of those organized autograph sessions. I've been to them at the Royal Opera House and there was no prohibition on cameras or taking pictures. It's possible that at Salzburg it was "forbidden" (I don't know), but probably not against the law. Anyhow, no I don't think it would be a good idea to bring them together while there are legal threats being bandied about. Voceditenore (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I had similar thoughts re. the legality, or otherwise - but don't think we can, or should, discuss it on-wiki; unfortunately, that's why I saw a need to request on ANI.  Chzz  ►  15:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• update - the uploader of the picture turned up on commons and stated the picture was taken in a public place. commons deletion discussion - Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

An excellent place for such a discussion. I would hope that any further legal accusations on en.wiki would see the threatener indef blocked. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The List of Hispanic and Latino Americans has just had several 100 unreferenced names added back. I've already reverted some of it today, can some else take a look at this. John lilburne (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that this issue has already been discussed at BLP/N here [32], and at AN/I here [33]. The consensus is clear on this matter - lists by ethnicity need to be sourced (indeed lists by anything need to be sourced - I'd have thought that this was blindingly obvious). AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This article contains blatant fabrications, including 90% of the high school years and also some game scores (e.g. the Illini did not defeat LSU in the Sugar Bowl, much less defeat them 70-3). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.51.36.78 (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I edited the lead and put a BLP sources tag on it. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This article reads like a CV or resume. The first source does not mention the subject. The second source is from the subject's staff detail at his place of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshersze (talk • contribs) 20:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I did some clean up and its tagged for Notability and Ref Improve so it should be OK for now. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Disputes taking place within this article are potentially harmful to the career of Sayuki, and may infringe on her rights to be a part of the Geisha community despite her Western heritage. There is dispute concerning:

- Whether Fiona was the first Western Geisha or not

- What should be the name of the article (and whether it should refer to 'Sayuki' throughout with no mention of Fiona)

- The matter of whether Fiona is still working, or working independently, or something in between.

An independent and objective evaluation would be extremely valuable in finding middle ground, balancing Fiona's rights and Wikipedia's principles, and ending editing wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrceep (talk • contribs) 05:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A quick search of the archives reveals that this has been discussed before... – ukexpat (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It has been discussed at length on the talk pages, too. The article as it stands reflects consensus and conforms to Wikipedia policies. Most, if not all, objection comes from a handful of IP addresses and single-purpose accounts which all appear to belong to Graham herself. Your Lord and Master (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit: The three points that Graham raised above have already been addressed. (1) She was not the first Western geisha -- that was Liza Dalby and there are references to prove it. (2) The name of the article is Fiona Graham and her geisha name of Sayuki is mentioned when appropriate. (3) The article does imply that she is still working but not as a member of Tokyo Asakusa Association. Lastly, the phrase "her rights to be a part of the geisha community" is laughable, given that one needs to be invited in, and can be expelled (as Graham found) at any time by the kumiai. Your Lord and Master (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Geir Lippestad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This seems like an obvious WP:BLP1E to me. Breveik's lawyer is not all of a sudden independently notable. Thoughts.Griswaldo (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That was my first thought when I saw that article early today. However, I looked at the Google News timeline and saw many references to him in 2001-2003, 2008-2009, and now in 2011 and figured I'd let this one pass. However, I just looked at the timeline again. He's not a BLP1E due to the prior mentions but I don't see any detailed coverage of the subject that would allow him to pass WP:N. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

All part of the frenzy around Breveik - seems harmless enough and cited - I think its less disruptive to let it ride for a while and see if it develops, if not nominate it when the edit frenzy has died down. Off2riorob (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

He is not BLP1E prima facie, as he is known for being the lawyer of the perp in the Murder of Benjamin Hermansen before the Norway massacre, so BLP1E doesn't apply at all, period. Notability itself is more iffy to establish, however, I am inclined to notable because he is a figure in two notable events with wide media mention (at least in Norway) and we shouldn't bias notability to notability in English speaking countries. If an AfD happens I predict a snowstorm :) --Cerejota (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done the ((notable)) and WP:PROD hatting, both of which the article's creator immediately removed. I'm still mulling over if I'll do an AFD and its wording. Cerejota noted, it'll be a snowstorm. :) All of the language versions of the Wikipedia article are new (created on or after 23 July 2011) with none of them indicating notability. I've been watching no:Geir Lippestad on the assumption the Norwegian editors would be most able to locate a source. For example, he is reported as being a "politician" on the English WP but so far there's no mention that he's ever held office meaning a better description in English may be "politically active."

I agree that his connection to two notable events is a factor plus the Breveik incident has triggered some direct coverage that may well satisfy notability.^{English: [34][35], German: [36]} --Marc Kupper|talk 03:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

He is basically a celebrity lawyer in Norway. If thats notable or not what we are discussing, but if American celebrity lawyers known only for one case, such as Jose Baez (lawyer) are held to be notable, a Norwegian celebrity lawyer known for two cases then meets the threshold. Perhaps the difference is that Norway tends to have a different celebrity culture that is more respectful than the US's and this creates a lack of RS, but as I mentioned systemic bias is not a reason to deny notability. Again, I am inclined to notability been sustained for a separate article, but the sources *on* the guy are few so I am not clear what the BLP/BIO issues here are.--Cerejota (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Einstein family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should the living great-grandchildren of a notable person (Albert Einstein) be named in an article about his family? I am talking about the privacy of names section of WP:BLP. How close does a relationship need to be for the person to be named, spouse and children obviously, but grandchildren, great-grandchildren? Quasihuman | Talk 18:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I see no possible encyclopedic value in such listings. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Orange Mike. No point in adding grandchildren and beyond, unless they have an article in their own right. I see no problem with adding information on how many children and grandchildren the person has. Robert Brockway (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have removed the names. Quasihuman | Talk 14:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to ask serious BLP watchers to look at the article George Soros conspiracy theories. I'm considering putting it up for deletion. It's really just a series of "So and so accuses Soros of ..." In one case, when the Prime Minister of Malaysia accused Soros of trying to destroy Malaysia's economy, I'm pretty sure that the material can go into a Wikipedia BLP article - and in fact it is included in the main George Soros article. In other cases I don't think the material passes WP:BLP, e.g. Glenn Beck accuses Soros of .... All in all, the article looks to me like a way to get around BLP restrictions, which are watched quite closely in the main George Soros article, since there are a lot of conspiracy nuts that attack Soros without having any basis in facts.

Any help appreciated. Smallbones (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup - a mess. And if someone is trying to use it to 'get around BLP restrictions', they are mistaken. WP:BLP applies to edits about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I listed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Soros conspiracy theories Smallbones (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

An IP editor claiming to represent the subject placed a statement of concern in the article itself here. I have moved the statement to the talk page and have notified the IP editor. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Vic Mignogna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The 'Controversies' section that is continually added only contains biased information about Vic Mignogna, and the content that is written includes defamation.

The source that continues to add it, Weeaboo Stories, is not a reliable source and does not provide true information on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.100.236 (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Article could use a couple of additional watchlisters. You are totally correct - thank you for the report. The content is currently out of the article and I will watch it to stop it being replaced and will request it is protected if there are attempts to replace it. Article could also use a little wikification. Trim and tidy type project. Off2riorob (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have also added the article to my watchlist. Sorry for reverting the removal, the text shouldn't be there and it's good if we keep an eye on it. Small hint to the IP, please give an Edit summary, it surely prevents your removal from being reverted.Cst17 (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting the removal. I agree with User:Cst17 - the removal was tagged 'section blanking' and there was no explanation. Denisarona (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Tori Black (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:BLP states that caution should be used publishing information on living persons, such as a birth name. i have included the real name of pornographic actress Tori Black, for the following reasons: 1) Tori BLack has made her real name public in a number of ways, including biographical detail in "reality" segments, a facebook page, and at the AVN; consequently, it makes no sense to argue that publishing is harmful. 2) per WP:BLP, the name is sourced. 3) WP:BLP also states that performers' names may be included 4) the longstanding, informal rule omitting porn performer's names is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.113.198.182 (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Without confirmation that it is indeed her facebook page (given the amount of impersonations that go on), it is better to err on the side of caution and not include this information. You shouldn't be edit warring over this. It's not a violation of WP:NPOV to enforce WP:V and WP:RS strictly with regards to biographies of living people. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Morbidthoughts above, if there is any doubt whatsoever, err on the side of caution. Please stop edit warring, if another editor agrees with you and makes the case for consensus here, let them readd the information. Dayewalker (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you amplify on your statement that it is "obviously" a violation of NPOV not to include their real names? I'm not sure how that is related to neutrality at all, actually. Is there a pressing encyclopedic need to reveal real names of pornographic actors and actresses? causa sui (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The person David Goodwillie has had his rape charge dropped [37]. Should the entire inclusion at the controversies section of the article relating to this charge be removed due to no conviction? Monkeymanman (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It's been widely reported, been a major issue in his move from Dundee Utd not happening as yet. AS long as it includes the fact the case was dropped, then it's balanced and relevant. Minkythecat (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Personally not to mention it all is wrong it was a major case in scotland, Its been reported that his proposed transfer to rangers and cardiff were delayed as they wanted to wait until his court case was confirmed before it went through. He may not of been convicted but it should be mentioned. Probably a lot played down than it currently is but at least it should be there for some context. As it did happen we cant blank that from history Warburton1368 (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - maybe worth focusing on the case being dropped as the focal point rather than several links to the case. Minkythecat (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

For the reason that he was accused, charged and then all charges dropped (even before it got to court) it proves he was in effect (in legal terms) innocent of any crime. With regards to transfers, both clubs have had bids in for the player (which was reported) which were rejected because they did not match the clubs valuation, they did not say they were going to wait to see the outcome of this case before deciding over a possible transfer. Monkeymanman (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Cardiff bid was accepted. The potential outcome of this case would have been far worse than the pending assault case. Move may occur fairly soon. Minkythecat (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There has to be some mention and it was mentioned in several sources that cardiff were in no hurry to push transfer through and were waiting for the outcome of whether the case was to be dropped. This was expected to be announced a few weeks ago but was delayed by the Crown Office. The section has been greatly reduced which is probably the correct action but we should mention it. Nobody is saying he is guilty it certainly dosent sat it in the article but history shouldn't be wiped altogether Warburton1368 (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Even the one sentence is too much. It leaves the lingering impression that there may have been some truth to the charges ("insufficient evidence"), even though, not only did the Crown refuse to prosecute, but he was never convicted. The fact that the events leading up to the dropping of the charges were "widely reported" is irrelevant. That is always the danger of us report on evolving news stories as if we're a newspaper rather than an encyclopedia. The sentence is a violation of WP:BLP ("it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment").--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I support Bbb23 in this position in regard to cautious interpretation of WP:BLP also - the detail imo if belonged anywhere would be at the accusers article, but they are not notable... - In February ***** accused a man of rape, after investigating the police dropped all charges against the man and said there was insufficient evidence to charge. It might seem high profile event in his life now in the press but in a few years wikipedia will be the only place the continues to report it. - Ask yourself - is it really encyclopedic long term content - 20 years ago jonny was accused of rape by a woman, after investigations the police dropped all charges saying there was insufficient evidence of rape. Off2riorob (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Support complete removal. Big news in 2011 is not encyclopedic content relative to the person's whole career. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed and left the addition-er a note to please discuss here. Off2riorob (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If Off ( and there's an apt name ) had a brain cell, he'd see my "addition" was in fact a subtraction, to mention the case but lessen the number of links to articles about it. As I pointed out earlier, it needs stressing the case was dropped... yet a numpty claims that's leading... Minkythecat (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Minjythecat's comment are getting a bit personally attacking hee and on his talkpage, I have left his a personal attack template. Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Might want to use a spell checker there. Nice to see you've arbitrarily decided the way the article should look based around a few negative comments from 3 people within a half hour time frame. Minkythecat (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course this needs mentioning, it's received incredible amounts of press coverage in the UK, and erasing it completely from his article smacks of censorship. However, we need to choose the wording very carefully, to be as neutral as possible. GiantSnowman 18:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The Scotland national football team manager Craig Levein has said the allegations were a factor in him not selecting Goodwillie (source). That is a clear and demonstrable effect on his career. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It needs to be reinstated into article in context with careful wording but it must be there. Ive said this before we cant wipe history it happened whether he is guilty or not. The article wouldn't say he was Guilty it would say there was insufficient evidence to proceed. Along as its well referenced whats the problem. His football carrer has been effectively on hold whilst the case was being decided on. Clubs said they were willing to wait on the outcome of the case before placing full transfer bids. Warburton1368 (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

With regards to BLP policy it should be removed. That has been stated on numerous BLP articles where they have been accused, charged and then all charges are dropped. His career was not on hold, he played almost everygame last season for United, if it was on hold he would have been dropped or forced to leave the club (just like Craig Thomson (footballer) except he was found guilty in a court of law, see the diff). Which club said that they were waiting to see the outcome of the trial? (which never emerged) Or was it just editorial judgement on reporters parts. Monkeymanman (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Craig Levein clearly stated last night that his international career had been on hold pending this process. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Funny how he mentions that after the charge is dropped. If there was any weight behind his statement he would have come out and said when goodwillie was first charged that he was not available for selection until his court case is completed. Monkeymanman (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how or why he said it, he did. Therefore it is clearly an important factor in Goodwillie's career to date. Levein picked him for the last game before the incident (the Faroe Islands match in November) and hasn't picked him in the three matches since (Brazil, Rep. Ireland and Wales). His comments yesterday indicate that he will be picked for the next game (Denmark), fitness permitting. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, these allegations have affected his career, and therefore needs mentioning. GiantSnowman 20:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

re the level of transfer interest, this BBC report states: "Interest in the player has grown since a rape charge was dropped against him earlier this week, with up to 10 clubs now believed to be monitoring the situation." Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that we need to mention the fact that the charges were dropped and that while they were pending, they affected his career. One or at most two sentences ought to be sufficient. (It will be easier to figure out the perfect balance a few years from now.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Done in the international career section. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• From the BBC - "The Dundee United striker, who is in talks with Blackburn, was overlooked for recent games as he faced criminal charges but the case has been dropped." GiantSnowman 17:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Dror64 has made this large, uncited, non-neutral POV change to this article, despite my reversions (1, 2 & 3) and the warnings / responses on their talk page / in my edit summaries. Nikthestoned 15:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is now protected by Daniel Case (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). In my opinion it would have been better to block Dror64 (talk · contribs) since protection has restricted editors from making constructive changes to the article. I've said as much on his talk page [38]. Not much else to see here, it seems. causa sui (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

See http://www.tedstake.com/2011/08/01/agnes-varis/, the blogger Ted Leonsis claims she was his great aunt and died this weekend. Fences&Windows 01:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I must say the response to Dror64 was pretty appalling - someone in good faith came along to try to document her life after her death this weekend, and he was met by edit warring and the locking of the page so that it appears she is still alive. Wikipedians really are heartless automatons sometimes. Fences&Windows 01:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else to recommend. The content the user added was unequivocally unencyclopedic. It's a distinction from someone acting out of admirable and perfectly understandable love and respect for the deceased and a desire to memorialize and commemorate her life, and someone acting out of an intent to make the most informative, well-written and referenced, comprehensive, encyclopedic and neutral encyclopedia article possible. What we have here is the former and not the latter. Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot be an outlet for the perfectly reasonable and understandable desire of the family to commemorate and memorialize the subject. causa sui (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Freddie Foreman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• - Freddie Foreman - is it libel to call him a criminal rather than a 'former criminal'?

See [39]. Do we also say 'former murderer' when a murderer has served his time? Dougweller (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Why not "convicted" rather than "former". There can't be any argument that he was convicted, even if he has served his time. – ukexpat (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Former or convicted is better. "criminal" implies that this is his current profession. "Murderer" doesn't imply this is a current profession nearly as much. --GRuban (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freddie Foreman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - article is not a biography - its a rap sheet / crime report - content should be under the crime where it likely already is duplicated. Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

1947 or 1943? Bringing this old thread back up. Google search for 1943: [40] Books: [41] and 1947: [42] Books: [43]. Which one? Connormah (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you list both and cite both? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Reiner Protsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I was appalled to read your entry concerning "German Anthropologist Reiner Protsch Von Zeiten." Talk about libelous, it most certainly is. Having read the several articles about the dating scandal, I noted in each that assertions about Protsch's alleged lack of credibility were partly if not largely a matter of opinion and a good deal of professional jealousy was apparent. I knew Reiner Protsch when I was an undergrad at UCLA, majoring in Zoology, and he was a grad student in the Geology Department dating laboratory, specializing in flourine dating. I recall even then that he'd run across some data suggesting that Neanderthal Man had coexisted for a time in Europe with modern man and that there may have been some interbreeding going on. Although he was a character, his honesty, hard work, and informed attitude about many subjects was clearly evident. We really don't know as much as we sometimes like to think about almost any scientific subject you care to name, but leave it to the people at Oxford to assert that only they understand the true facts. I read another article in Wikipedia about a UCLA grad student, Carlos Castaneda, that members of Wikipedia similarly lambasted because of the opinion of one researcher who considered him a conman and nothing more. I recently heard a librarian at our local community college warn students not to use Wikipedia for resource material because it is not reliable. As an author, myself, I sometimes use references from Wikipedia for minor matters where no controversy exists. But when it comes to the controversial topics I personally know about, you folks are often grotesquely biased. In my opinion, you owe Protsch an apology and should tone down your article considerably. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbecker476 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the Sceptic's Dictionary as a source since previous discussions at the reliable sources noticeboard appear to indicate that it isn't suitable for a biography of a living person. I've also added a link to the online version of Archaeological Institute of America's magazine article cited as a source. Having read through that article and the Guardian article I don't see substantial differences between what the Wikipedia article says and what those 2 sources say. It probably needs a thorough review though. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

...and I've promptly removed almost all of the rest - our article almost certainly qualifies as plagiarism of the Archaeological Institute of America article. I con see no reason why a properly sourced and cited article about Protsch cannot be included in Wikipedia, but not the one we have at the moment... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I think you're right. It's better to start from scratch. The article was written like an exposé rather than an encyclopedia article. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

There is also the question as to how notable Protsch really is. If this alleged misconduct it his only claim to 'fame', I doubt that he merits an article - and if it isn't, the article needs more about whatever else he is notable for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Serpent's Choice/Sandbox/Review is a copy of the article formerly at Charlotte Wyatt deleted in 2007 through BLP. It could be argued that the deleted article could be restored given the number of references and the ongoing presence on search engines. Key to me raising this here though is that while a search for "Charlotte Wyatt" does not bring up and links to Wikipedia[44], a search for "Charlotte Wyatt Wiki" (a common way of searching for Wikipedia content and one of the Google autocompletes) does bring up the page in user space as the first hit[45]. Interestingly it also has right to life as the third result, a relevant page but it does not mention Charlotte there.

The options therefore are:

1. We leave it, it's in user space so it doesn't matter
2. We undelete Charlotte Wyatt on the basis that it is notable
3. We delete/blank User:Serpent's Choice/Sandbox/Review
4. We NOINDEX User:Serpent's Choice/Sandbox/Review

I really don't have a particularly strong view either way. violet/riga _^[talk] 19:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

nothing BLP contentious here - the rest belongs on the talk page of the article.--Scott Mac 21:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs) is violating the WP:BLP policy Rio Ferdinand inserting his opinion backed with two book sources. Perhaps they are reliables, I don't know. (The books are The PFA Footballers' Who's Who 2009–10 by Barry J. Hugman, and Sky Sports Football Yearbook 2009–2010. by Jack and Glenda Rollin). The problem here is that PJ is saying that Manchester United F.C., his football team is wrong. How they can be wrong when they do medical tests? According to him because "[He has] seen him and he cannot be 1.95" or in other words, his own opinion. After I made a simple research at Google I got 4 reliable sources saying he is actually 1.95m (6 ft 5 in):

• Manchester United F.C. Height: 195.5cm. In my opinion, the most reliable source due they know their players.
• UEFA, which is the administrative and controlling body for European association football, futsal and beach soccer, said Height: 195cm
• Goal.com, a website for international football news, Altura: (Height): 195cm
• FC Barcelona, another football team, With Rio Ferdinand measuring 195 centimetres...

4 reliable sources, one his teama and another that is the organisation which administrate European football cannot be wrong as PJ is trying to say. If he can prove that Ms. Rolling, Mr. Rolling or Mr. Hugman took a tape measure and actually they measured him, those sources are less reliable than online reliable sources.

The questions are:

• What can be done here?
• Who is right and who wrong (The online sources or the offline ones)?
• Have PJ a copy of those books and they really say that? Because this is not the first time somebody change something written in a book.
• Is PJ making BLP violation and should be reverted and/or blocked?

Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not a contentious issue and not a significant BLP problem - discuss it on the talk page. I've started off somewhere to gather evidence for both heights. violet/riga _^[talk] 20:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I very much doubt you will take my word for it, but I do have copies of those books, and I know a lot of other people who have even more up-to-date versions that say exactly the same thing: Rio Ferdinand is 6 feet and 2 inches tall. In fact, I have another book (Manchester United: The Biography by Jim White) that accurately states that Ferdinand is 6 feet and 2.5 inches tall. I can also find online sources (ESPNsoccernet, The Telegraph and Yahoo! Eurosport) that give Ferdinand's height as between 6'2" and 6'3". But regardless of which of those you believe, Rio Ferdinand is definitely not 6'5", and any source that tells you he is 6'5" has probably copied it from Wikipedia when it was stating the wrong height. – PeeJay 20:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Manchester cannot copy what we say, they are not too lazy to copy us. They must do medical tests and they cannot cheat. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Who says the people who write ManUtd.com didn't make a mistake? – PeeJay 20:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

There has been a contentious debate and some edit warring over mention of mention of Anders Behring Breivik in the article about Robert Spencer. At first, a separate section devoted to the Norway attacks was started. Then it was removed altogether and then restored, several times over. Now it has been moved to a "controversies" section which lists several controversial events involving Spencer.

Detractors claim that inclusion of the fact that Breivik quoted Spencer over 60 times in his manifesto amounts to Guilt by Association in violation of WP:BLP. Proponents for inclusion have variously argued that it should be included to demonstrate Spencer's negative influence, to simply reporting the fact alone doesn't constitute Guilt by Association.

It would be nice to see more input and consensus built on this matter. I assume that similar issues have also occurred with regard to Pamela Geller and Breivik's own article.01:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemiljan (talk • contribs)

As per references cited under Breivik (3) above, the influence of the internet vehicles of Spencer, Geller, Fjordman and other "counterjihadis" has been commented on in various reports published in reliable sources. There's also a fair amount of direct references to the aims, aspirations and interactions of members of the movement (eg explicit reasons for mutual antagonism over the EDL "anti-semitism" dispute) on the websites and blogs.

Breivik's "2083 - A European Declaration of Independence" calling for a crusade against Islam in Europe is a copy and paste of hundreds of pages taken from right-wing/counterjihadi bloggers and websites, in particular Fjordman's posts at Gates of Vienna (Fjordman) in which he references Jihad Watch (Spencer), The Brussels Journal, FrontPage Magazine, Chronicles, Little Green Footballs, Atlas Shrugs and others.

Frank Patalong in Spiegel Online describes this as an extremely well networked, rapidly growing far-right "scene" that aims to establish a respectable presence as an "anti-Jihad" counterbalance. While they certainly disclaim responsibility for his actions it's hard to see how the influence of their views on Breivik's, noted by observers including Patalong, Shane, Gaarder and Hyllund Eriksen and acknowledged by Breivik himself, can be disregarded when they relate to an action carried out on the basis of those views.

The alternative "dissociative" hypothesis (the claim that mention represents "guilt by association") surely needs to be substantiated too, in a way that explains convincingly why Breivik's views should be assumed not to have been influenced by his immersion in this subculture. Opbeith (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that reports from reliable sources should be included, and also some of Spencer's responses. At the same time, there has been a considerable problem on Spencer's page with supporters inserting "responses" by him to each and every point of criticism. I agree that we'll have to see how this plays out, but I am comfortable with the current, limited wording. Jemiljan (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a bit sparse but sometimes you have to go with what's reasonably feasible. At least the desperate efforts being made to stop any connection being made between Spencer's views and Breivik aren't as determined as those aimed at letting Fjordman off the hook, even to the extent of deleting the Fjordman article. Opbeith (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This is discussed above in the "Anders Behring Breivik (3)" section. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Quadell, it is discussed, but it seems that my point about Spencer's detailed replies- not only to Breivik's quotation, but also the media response in general- in several RS 3rd party sources is lost in the shuffle. The vast bulk of the conversation is focused on Breivik, and little discussion is made of Spencer's several lengthy responses. Would you care to address this? See my reply to John lilburne in the above thread for references to the interviews in question.Jemiljan (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A passage that is quite similar to what I've proposed in both brevity and neutral tone is found in the entry on Sarah Palin, in which mention is made of the Gabrielle Giffords [and Palin's subsequent denunciation]. The entry on Jodie Foster contains a similar passage referring to [F. Hinckley Jr's assassination attempt on President Reagan]. A cursory search of the archives reveals that there was a similarly contentious debate over mention of the Gifford's shooting in Palin's entry on both the discussion page and the WP:BLP noticeboard, and a consensus was clearly obtained regarding the current wording. I think this provides an acceptable model, and would ask dissenters to specifically describe how the wording that is under discussion violates WP:BLP standards, when similar passages are found in other WP:BLP articles.Jemiljan (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Get a load of this Deborah Winters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Some days I dont know whether to hate or love the Wikipedia Review when they find stuff like this. The question is what do we do with it now? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Would you believe the first 10 ratings were unanimous straight 5s? I removed a bit of the puff/resume. Do folks really expect WP to be an agent? I love the fact that she married the producer <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

And would you believe that everyone of her films has it's own article by the same SPA? I moving on to COIN with this. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the article a bit. I've looked through every one of the references and they seem somewhat malformed per MoS guidelines, also removed extraneous trivia and adjusted some wording. In my opinion the present number of images seems to be overwhelming the text. Shearonink (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The subject of this article has publicly complained via Twitter that his Wikipedia page is incorrect, and that he is "an American that played on the Jamaican team."[46] I removed the "Jamaican" nationality from the info box, and the statement in the lede that he has Jamaican citizenship, since I couldn't find a single source stating either, including the references in the article. User:Namiba is edit-warring to keep reinserting various forms of Hibbert being Jamaican nationality or citizen, including saying that "to represent a country you need citizenship of it as part of intl rules".[47] Until there is a reliable source stating that Hibbert is a "Jamaican citizen" and has "Jamaican nationality", these things shouldn't be in the article, since it seems controversial, at least with the subject himself. First Light (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Jamaica's Hibbert working hard to reach the top is one such source. It really is not a controversial topic to say that someone who represents a country internationally is a citizen of that country. It is sort of self explanatory, no? The article linked above explicitly says he is Jamaican, Trinidadian and American.--TM 23:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Roy Hibbert doesn't seem to think this is as silly as you find it, so his citizenship and "nationality" need to be verified by reliable sources, not by conjecture. The article falls under the requirements of WP:BLP. Even if that source were reliable, does that mean the article should state that he is a Jamaican-Trinidadian-American? First Light (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Also being discussed at Talk:Roy Hibbert. First Light (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)