This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

I'm not quite sure of the best way forward on this, so I thought I'd bring it here. The Wilson Affair article was just created, even though current consensus on Talk:Julia Gillard was against coverage as it was effectively gossip - in effect, it is rumoured that Gillard may have had part of her house renovations paid, unbeknownst to her, through funds that may have been fraudulently gained by someone she was in a relationship at the time. The article is peppered with allegations, but as nothing has ever been found, it just comes down to a mild conspiracy theory with nothing to support it. The problem here is that Wilson was investigated by police, but never charged, so at best it is alleged that he acted illegally, but nothing has ever been proven. However, the initial version of the article simply stated that he had embezzled funds and was guilty of fraudulently obtaining money. It has since been qualified, but there is no earlier version to revert to. I'm not sure if revdel can remove the first version or not, so I'm not sure of the best process from here. - Bilby (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

May I say regarding Bilby's claims above - for those who do not live in Australia - that this issue is currently on the front page of newspapers in the country and you might wonder why Bilby is sure all these very senior reporters across many well-respected organisations can be taken in by "... a mild conspiracy theory with nothing to support it ...".

It's up to senior people at Wikipedia I suppose: Should an article on Julia Gillard reveal the town her parents live but not mention an issue that is headline news across the country? Freebird15 (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not my concern. My concern is that the article presented libellous claims about Wilson as fact in the original version, as you agreed was the case. My query is how to handle that problem. I assume anything else is a case for AfD, if it isn't a BLP violation, but the claims regarding Wilson are a BLP issue. - Bilby (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This "article" (using the term loosely) is a compilation of "allegations" and is not proper per WP:BLP . Allegations are tricky in the best of circumstances, and this article fails. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN A scandal, covered by news sources, of a person who is wellknown, should be included. This is the core case for this policy. Everything must be presented as allegation, and not fact, but not including it under BLP grounds is foolish. If it deserves a standalone article or should be merged I will leave to others. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There is an argument to be made about the article itself. Personally, a list of allegations that amount to nothing seems a bad basis for an article, well known or not. But my main question, though, is how to handle the libel in the page's history given that it was the first edit of the article. - Bilby (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

An administrator can delete the revision if needed, but I do not think this goes to that level. Many articles have initial revisions that violate policy in one way or another. It is the current revision that needs to conform, not previous ones, except in extreme cases. If you believe that a historical revision should be deleted, make a post at ANI Gaijin42 (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou. It's been taken care of now, so I guess the other issues are to be worked through at AfD. - Bilby (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Not quite -- it is now AWU scandal with a withdrawn editorial column being used indirectly to assert contentious claims. See below. Collect (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated the cat for deletion, but I'd appreciate some assistance in taking a look at all the articles involved. I'm a little hard pressed for on-wiki time now and this hasn't received the attention it needs. I presume all the articles have the same kind of "he's alleged to have committed this" kind of entries that I cleaned up from a few. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 07:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ashok Kumar Sharma is an example of this, languishing as a BLP vio for three years. —SpacemanSpiff 12:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Ganesh Singh - dreadful, really bad. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

But in the case of Ganesh Singh, the editor who created the category added the accusation to the article, in an in your face way. I've reverted him. If this is typical of his editing.... Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I've removed the poorly sourced list of alleged crimes from all the articles (the category has since been removed by the creator, so it's a bit difficult to figure out which articles are impacted). —SpacemanSpiff 19:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Gents, thanks for your time in this regard. I am the editor who created that category. What I fail to understand is that is why is everyone taking an objection when the category clearly stated that the politicians are accused and it does not state that they are criminals or convicts. There is a BIG difference in what you are talking about and what the category was. If the reasons you are giving are true then please enlighten me on this article, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this etc. I can put another 100 examples (at least) but the point I am trying to make here is that the update in Singh’s profile was NOT wrong and has been wrongly reverted. No one is falsely accusing anyone of anything OR vandalizing anyone’s page for that matter. These are real cases, talked about in media and pending with court; proper references cited. Cheers AKS 19:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Scott Tucker (racing driver) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ok quick question for y'all :) We received a communication to WP:OTRS complaining about references #3 and #4 in this article - which are from i-watch news. Their complaint is that the source (I think the second one) displays a copy of Tucker's private signature; a violation of his privacy. They ask we remove the links. What's the best approach do you think? It has merit, but I've never come across a situation like it. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• OK ... the first ref was only being used to source his conviction, which I've replaced with a completely reliable source. The second one was only being used to source his connection with AMG, which was already sourced by Link #5 - which unfortunately was dead. However, Link #5 was merely a press rewrite of the original FTC announcement, so I've moved the wording around and just sourced to the original instead. Comments? Black Kite (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Awesome! Thanks :) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Under the header "1997-2010: Playaz Circle and Providing Peace" much of the information is wrong and condraticts itself and other articles included but not limited to the name of the other member of the duo "Playaz Circle" (Marshall Mathers is Eminems birthname and has nothing to do with Playaz Circle, and said that 2 chainz went by that name at the time which is also not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.212.30 (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Eugene Plotkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd appreciate if some other editors could pour over the Eugene Plotkin article. This is a BLP about a person who was accused of insider trading, plead guilty to securities fraud, and received a lot of press attention in the process due to the size and scope of the alleged conspiracy. The tricky thing about this article, to me, is that it is built almost entirely on accusations leveled by the SEC, which were themselves picked up by multiple news outlets. I don't see much evidence of actual independent reporting, although the sources are from high-quality publishers. Plotkin himself plead guilty to the charges while more-or-less denying everything. For those with OTRS access, ticket:2012081510009864 is relevant. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I skimmed the article, read a few of the sources (at least one is subscription-based), and can't access the OTRS ticket. My initial reaction is why do we have an article about Plotkin? Perhaps the conspiracy is sufficiently notable to have an article, but Plotkin isn't, and the article is about the conspiracy far more than about Plotkin. We don't even have an article on Pajcin, who is supposedly the leader of the conspiracy, not Plotkin.

I don't see the issue you see about the SEC and its allegations. I also am puzzled that you think Plotkin plead guilty but more or less denied the charges. The only thing I saw was him complaining that he wasn't in charge, not that he didn't do it. In the context of a guilty plea, it seems reasonable to me that you would have less reporting on the events themselves except as reported by the agency prosecuting the case because there was no trial and therefore no "evidence".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the denial, I don't recall the specific source, but basically, Plotkin only admitted to one of the many things the SEC accused him of. He denied having a direct role, denied recruiting the other three co-conspirators, denied carrying out trades in other peoples' names, denied paying people for inside information, and denied receiving payment for inside information. As far as I'm aware, he only admitted to trading on inside information. He spoke almost as if he were a bystander watching Pajcin lead the conspiracy. True or not (and even with the possibility that Plotkin gave inconsistent statements in different sources), I'm still left somewhat uncomfortable with an article that, ultimately, uses the prosecutor as the only original source of information. I do agree that choosing only one of five conspirators to write an article on, and not even the leader of the group, seems kind of silly. Unless someone wants to argue that Plotkin's noted skill in Ballroom dancing moves this out of BLP1E. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(small ec) LOL, ballroom dancing convicts are inherently notable. In what context did all of Plotkin's denials occur? Before the plea? During? After? I'm curious. In any event, I'd focus on whether the conspiracy is notable. If it is, I'd change the name of the article and eliminate any undue emphasis on Plotkin.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

In the plea itself. I'm sure he denied everything prior to that. The most direct source I can find is [1]. It takes a careful reading, but basically, the only role he admitted to having in the conspiracy was contacting Spigelman. With regard the other fragments of the conspiracy he was accused of, he only admitted to trading on inside information, although the prosecutor's office still implied after the plea that his involvement was greater than admitted. As far as I can tell, he dropped off the face of the Earth once he was released. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that if he didn't admit something when pleading that he effectively denied it? If so, he doesn't have to admit everything. He just has to set forth a factual basis for the court to accept the plea - in other words, enough to establish the elements of the crime.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure now if he actively denied the accusations or simply refused to admit to them. Anyway, I'm not going to edit any further as the article technically follows the sources, but something still makes me uncomfortable about the whole thing. I don't think the sources are sufficient to state as a fact something that was ultimately just a prosecutorial accusation. If I accuse you of killing Elvis because you knew you couldn't be as good a singer, and you confess to the killing, that doesn't confirm the truth of the motive. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

In the U.S. system, when a defendant accepts a plea, s/he has no ability to effectively deny the portions of the indictment which may not pertain, particularly with a conspiracy. According to federal law, every individual associated with a conspiracy may be held responsible for the entire conspiracy. To use an example, the driver of the getaway car may be held equally responsible for a murder committed during a bank robbery, even though he may have never set foot inside the bank and never condoned such an action. Thus, Plotkin may have played a limited role, but he still would have needed to plead to the entire indictment. Not sure why there is an article under Plotkin rather than under the Adidas-Reebok Insider Trading Conspiracy or something along those lines? Agree with Bbb23 on that. That is, assuming this is even notable. With regard to ballroom dancing notability, I could not find any independent references to a notable ballroom dancer named Eugene Plotkin. There appears to be no independent verification that Eugene Plotkin and a dancer named "Gene Michael" are the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomwalk999 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

As a note there is an influx of new editors taking a great interest in this article, both here and on the article talk page. Which, while we start with an assumption of good faith, previous experience Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jackadvisor/Archive should not be ignored. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

[2] shows the problem at Matt Drudge. "Out Magazine" and "Miami New Times" are not RS sources for claims about anyone's sexual orientation. The claims are contentious, violate WP:BLPCAT on their face, and have repeatedly been inserted by a single edit warrior now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

A related point: the link to the latter (just temporarily?) redirects to a junk page.

The most recent edit is this one. This says Drudge is a fan of famous gay club DJs Junior Vasquez and Peter Rauhofer. I've never heard of either; if they're famous, surely readers don't need to be told this. (For that matter, no obvious reason to say that they're gay.) Many of WP's biographees are fans of lots of people; examples don't seem notable to me, unless an unusual degree of fan(wor)ship can be demonstrated (e.g. Drudge crosses the US in order to hear these people). Additionally, the most recent edit has the article say Drudge regularly makes the Out power list, but absurdly does so on the strength of one (1) appearance. The "Out power list" is so tremendously significant that, uh, it doesn't rate the slightest mention within the article on Out (magazine).

So all in all I'd agree with you, Collect, that this edit does nothing to benefit the article. Where you lose me is your talk of

claims about anyone's sexual orientation. The claims are contentious, violate WP:BLPCAT on their face [...]

I see no claims about anyone's sexual orientation. The closest is a mention of the silly Out thing, from which one might infer that the biographee is gay. But maybe Out has broader coverage; I don't know (or much care). -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"Out Magazine" absolutely makes the claim in its very list -- or do you not know what "Out Magazine" is? -- so the material absolutely hits WP:BLPCAT on its face. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

What'e your basis for saying that Out Magazine is not a reliable source? Formerip (talk) 11:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Collect, WP:BLPCAT is about the categorization tags inserted at the bottom of pages, articles comprised solely of lists, and navigation templates. In light of that fact, can you explain how the material "absolutely hits" it on its face"? AzureCitizen (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a "contentious claim". A gay publication which is known for outing people is not a good source for the strong implicit claim that Drudge is gay. It is not a "reliable source" per Wikipedia requirements. Gay publications refer to it as a list of gays. [3] Chicago Pride states it outright. [4] as does SFist. [5] and GoLocalProv. One need not be blind to what a list so described by the other gay journals is. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is a "list of gays" not a reliable source? Formerip (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Because the creator of the list may not be a reliable source. Out magazine is known for its aggressive outing, regardless of how the subject self-identifies. I wouldnt class it as a reliable source for 'who is gay'. However the RSN may disagree. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(@Collect) I take it you've realized now that WP:BLPCAT does not apply to this situation. With regard to sourcing, the magazine in question certainly would not be a reliable source for a BLP article declaring that someone is gay, but it would be a reliable source for a statement that someone made the "Out power list." Editors can differ over whether or not such a mention in an article is relevant or notable in a BLP's coverage, but it is not a "contentious claim" that violates WP:BLP. AzureCitizen (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The intent of the two additions are clearly to imply that drudge is gay. That is why they are in the "personal life" section, and not the hypothetical "music he likes" and "awards" sections. You are quite correct that WP:BLPCAT does not apply in this case, but WP:BLP does. The "DJ" ref includes a number of musicians that Drudge has stated liking (let alone other sources talking about his musical preference). Cherry picking the two gay DJs is done for a purpose, which is to label Drudge as gay. Out is obviously an RS for the content of their own list, but as the list is specifically listing "powerful gay people", it is again included to label him as gay, and they are NOT reliable for that fact.Gaijin42 (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gaijin. My comment was directed more to the use of statement I gave as an example in the context of being a reliable source that does not run afoul of WP:BLP. I too suspect the editor who added the material cherry picked it to make some sort of connection to orientation. However, suppose that instead of adding statements to the personal life section, the editor had added a single sentence in the section called "Influence" to this effect: "In 2012, Drudge made the Out Magazine power list for being a web pioneer whose approach to blogging remains highly influential." Wouldn't you agree that would be fine? AzureCitizen (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't. It is akin to "fruit of the poisoned tree" -- once the material is deemed inadmissable, "finagling it around" does not make it admissable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Taking that view would shut editors down from reaching compromises and accommodations on material and content, as well as prevent other editors from mediating. Either the properly worded statement above is permissible, or it's not, based on its own merits. If someone else comes along and adds such a statement to the "Influence" section of the article, I think you'd need a better argument for its exclusion than saying it was "finagled". Unless you can refer us to a Wiki "fruits of the poisoned tree" policy? AzureCitizen (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Its a gray area. At first glance I would agree with you, however being gay (rightly or wrongly) is controvercial in some circles, and if drudge is gay, he is closeted obviously attempting to keep it under wraps (and has explicitly denied it in sources which are extremely reliable), therefore I think his sexuality qualifies as "contentious". As Out magazine is specifically listing gay people I think it violates it. This of it this way. (note I am about to make a HORRIBLE analogy, and I am in no way trying to link homosexuality with crimes or illegal immoral purposes, its just to show an example where your argument breaks down).or the KKK published a list of "influential white supremacists" , or influential communists, or influential "truthers/birthers", etc. Some person X (who is notable and has an article) is listed by them (and the subject has not publicly admitted to that behavior/belief, or not been convicted etc). Would including this item in their article violate BLP? In all cases is is a rliable fact that the person is on that list, but membership in that list is implying something which is NOT well sourced. If you agree so far, then the only issue is weather or not sexual orientation is contentious. I think policy says it is (because we have BLPCAT etc), drudge is denying/hiding it says it is, and the very fact that we are having this discussion says it is. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I can appreciate the gray argument you're trying to make. The analogy doesn't port well over to situation at hand, however, because you've employed extremist groups that advocate criminalized behavior and/or hate speech. WP:BLP contemplates crime (see WP:BLPCRIME) for good reason, but it only speaks to sexual orientation with regard to the need to avoid CATs and lists. Unlike crime, the issue of sexual orientation is not defamation per se. Nonetheless, if Drudge denies being gay, and an editor were to add material to the Drudge article designed to directly imply Drudge was gay, I'd agree that is contentious. The statement "In 2012, Drudge made the Out Magazine power list for being a web pioneer whose approach to blogging remains highly influential," however, does not directly imply that Drudge is gay and would have to be judged on its own merits as to whether or not it fits into the section on influence. As an aside, I don't think the editor who inserted the contested material to begin with (referred to above as an "edit warrior") wasn notified about this thread in WP:BLPN. As a courtesy, should someone let him/her know that their edit was being discussed here? AzureCitizen (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

But "sexual orientation" is, by long precedent here, a "contentious claim." Using a sideways edit to make an inference which would not be allowed as a simple claim is gaming the system at best - and precedent, again, is that the "contentious claim" can not be inserted in such an oblique manner. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I also included communists, birthers, truthers etc examples for that reason. (or say, climate change-denialists, homophobes, flat-earthers, creationists, etc) Those "categories" are not illegal, but are controversial/contentious. If it was "A list of politicians who are climate change-deniers and creationists" from Mother Earth magazine (or whatever), but there was not any reliable proof of that persons belief, then saying "Politician X was on the list of Mother Earth's climage change denialists" is in fact calling him a denialist. Orientation explicitly is contentious for wikipedia, otherwise we wouldn't have WP:BLPCAT specifically discussing orientation. (I am not arguing that BLPCAT applies here, merely that BLPCAT shows that sexual orientation is something that requires additional scrutiny (because it is contentious)) and adding an award/list membership that identifies the subject as something that is contentious is in general, not acceptable unless that identification is otherwise reliably sourced (That you could put a statement into the article saying "Subject is a X [ref]. Subject made the list/ of "influential Xers". If you can't make the first statement, you also can't make the second one (assuming X is contentious). Gaijin42 (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

A reasonable person reading that someone has made the Out Power list would not be stupid in assuming that Out considers them gay. If he appeared in 'Watchtowers Power List' they would probably assume the subject was a Jehovah's Witness, if they appeared in 'Furry Monthly - Leaders of the Pack' they would think that Furry Monthly has good reason to infer they like yiffing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

If Drudge is gay and out, we can say so. Otherwise we cannot. Isn't that how it works? Implying that he is gay through dubious references as to what DJs he likes or what influential lists he appears on is scurrilous, and I like to think we don't do scurrilous. --Pete (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The "innuendo" that would be suggested by using Out runs afoul of WP:BLP.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 08:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Seems to be Personnel Resume of the said person,most of the sources linked to papers states of being a participatory in an event, which also claims that she being one of 25 most powerfull women in India , but does not link to any other official list or other sources. and also most of the articles stated in the said news papers does not have any neutral tone nor is a statement of any news. it has only marketing content of herself or her company may be a work of personnel marketing executive. Started as a marketing material , was further edited to get a neutral tone , currently looks exactly like a Resume of the said person.

The creator of the aricle has not contributed to any other article other than creating her article and trying to create article about her company , currently being banned may also be using sock puppet id to upload more of her picture. Definitly not a wiki material Shrikanthv (talk) 06:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Please also refer to the user talk page : link , it seems that he was blocked repeatedly and is also known to be doing wikipedia article for money.Shrikanthv (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• It is not the creator but a major contributor who is blocked as a sock puppet. I suspect this is not the noticeboard to air these issues. I see your PROD was declined and you have been advised to consider Articles for Deletion instead, where a discussion may be held. That seems to me to be the correct forum, though the article, poor as it is, looks as if it will survive a deletion discussion. There are no red flags here under BLP that need to be considered at this point. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Somebody keep posting factually wrong information and political propaganda. Tokpah Johan Mulbah WAS the Deputy Speaker of the 52nd Legislature of Liberia, and is a member of Ecowas Parliament. The BBC article clearly states that he was NOT put under house arrest and not charged. "police had raided his house and taken away five people, including his son." Later in 2010 he was declared NOT guilty on all charges. The police violated the law by attacking the private residence without a warrant. http://www.concern-liberians.org/chat_room/view_topic.php?id=61663&forum_id=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanne007 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, please don't add commentary to articles as you did here. The site www.concern-liberians.org doesn't qualify as a reliable source. The article is lacking content based on high quality sources. Please improve it if you can. The BBC source does say that he was "briefly being held under house arrest" but I've removed all of the information related to that incident for now. Please use the article's discussion page, Talk:Tokpah_John_Mulbah, to propose and discuss changes to the content based on reliable sources. For example, please bring a source that can be cited to support content about him having been Deputy Speaker of the 52nd Legislature of Liberia, and a member of Ecowas Parliament. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

There seems to have been an incident involving him being photographed. There has been multiple postings of this diff. Should the page be fully protected again? Seems to be rather tabloidal... Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 08:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, in the last few hours there were two vandalism attempts to delete the whole paragraph regarding this incident from this article. They were made by the following two users: diff made by Writingnerd101 (talk|contribs) (who has only one other edit in his history) and diff by an anonymous 174.134.140.129 (talk|contribs) (who has no history of any other edits at all). It might be the same person. I restored the deleted paragraph in both cases, but I can't keep an eye on this article all the time. So I support the idea to fully protect this article again. --Daniel (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Quite why you are adding that nonsense back I don't know. WP:UNDUE at the very least. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • 'Heir to thrones brother makes fool of self' hardly constitutes a notable event. If we went around documenting every Prince who has been caught with their trousers round their ankles we would be here until the sun goes supernova. Harry does have a habit of putting his foot in it though. It could shape up in the UK to be an interesting aside to the Leveson enquiry. See the current BBC article on it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    • There were a number of editors who have contributed to this paragraph. This incident was covered by the most reputable media all over the world. In fact, this news is among the most popular news articles on BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/. If anyone seriously consider that this event ought to be silenced and excluded from Wikipedia, let's discuss it on the talk page of this article, rather than deleting the whole paragraph about this event. --Daniel (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
      • "silenced"? hah! theres lots of stuffs that appear in all kinds of reliable sources that are simply not relevant in an encyclopedia article. This particular case is not really about BLP, but it is about UNDUE and NOT.-- The Red Pen of Doom 11:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

In section WP:BLPN#Category:Indian politicians accused of crimes above the editor, AKS, who has been adding to the category provides a list of articles List of politicians in India charged with corruption (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) saying "If the reasons you are giving are true then please enlighten me on this article, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this etc.". That looks to me to be a cleanup list. The first article in his list is List of politicians in India charged with corruption (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), so let's look at it. But first I'd ask editors to read the succesful AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of California public officials charged with crimes. Then note that the list on Indian politicians has words like "acquitted", "Indicted him. Resigned. Finally assassinated", "Higher court overturned conviction in the first case and the trial court acquitted him in the other two cases" etc. For those who weren't acquitted or convicted (or murdered), we have entries with no dates so it you have to look at the source to even guess how old the entry is and whether things have changed - in other words, some of those may have been convicted or acquitted already. The list clearly has BLP violations - maybe we can have a list of convicted Indian politicians, but this is wrong. Dougweller (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It needs to go to AfD - I am leaving for a long weekend away in about 6 hours but will take it there before this afternoon. GiantSnowman

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of politicians in India charged with corruption. GiantSnowman 11:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Another one that AKS added to Category:Indian politicians accused of crimes is Arun Gawli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A truly dreadful article tagged correctly as a personal reflection, with one 7 year old source. It calls him an "alleged criminal" in the lead and goes downhill from there. It appears that Category:Indian criminals may have some wrong entries as this person, never convicted, is in the category. We may have excellent reasons to think he is a criminal, but we should not be calling someone a criminal who has never been convicted of a crime. He does look like a pretty bad guy, but unless someone can quickly source it, it gets stubbed. Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Indian politicians convicted of crimes is also a problem. I just stepped into this hornet's nest a few days back and posted here on Category:Indian politicians accused of crimes, but this category also suffers from similar problems, I've removed a few entries where I struggled to find any convictions, I'm sure there are more. A blow torch is required to tackle all the articles involved, as if you go to one Gopal Goyal Kanda, you will note that the same content is also replicated in Geetika Sharma, thereby taking the BLP problem to other articles too. —SpacemanSpiff 11:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Can we merge all these Indian politicians sections as it's just a little easier to handle that way IMO. Also, can someone take a look at Gopal Goyal Kanda as I've got to step out for a while? —SpacemanSpiff 12:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Just trimmed all the unsourced or poorly sourced claims pretty much - this has to be one of the worst rat's nests I have seen. Any claims should be added if and only if they have strong RS sources now - there is no "bye" to wait while they are not present found in WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

A user keeps editing the mma career hostory of Jon Jones. They are citing false incidents that are also dated in the future — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.204.60 (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The Jon Jones (fighter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article? Another editor has already reverted the vandalism; I have also protected the article for a week so that should prevent further disruption. Thanks for letting us know. GiantSnowman 13:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

An ip user keeps on vandalising the Abdul Razzaq Tlas page by placing into the article inappropriate words such playboy or stud. At the same time a few other editors wanted to place in poorly sourced information about a sexcam video. I believe all this material is inappropriate. Guest2625 (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

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

The biographic page for Riley Schillaci was started and written by Riley Schillaci herself as a marketing tool. She is only a regional performer and does not fit the requirements for a wikepedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.94.100 (talk) 01:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a candidate for WP:CSD#G11. It looks to me like a clear conflict of interest and a clear promotion. The subject herself appears to have created the article consistently added promotional tone ever since. I'm tagging it for speedy deletion under G11. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 05:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Just added ((db-promo)) to top of the the article and then notified the article creator here. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 05:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riley Schillaci (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Yep another Australian silly season article <g>.

The edit at issue is [6].

The basis for the claims was an "opinion piece" by Glenn Milne which was yanked by the publisher. The new "sources" cite the original "opinion piece" as "fact" in an article which, I suggest, refers to "living persons" and makes "contentious claims" thereon. Ought a secondary reference to an "opinion piece" be utile as a source for allegations of clealry improper acts? Note the edit does say the article was "removed" - but does mentioning the removal cure the ill-effect of giving air to the allegation made in the first place in an "opinion piece" (as stated by the Australian). Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the precise statement to which you object, Collect? Looking at the totality of the material, you've attempted to remove a whole bunch of stuff from various well-regarded political correspondents. Paul Kelly, for example. --Pete (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Edits which serve to promote material which was withdrawn by its publisher do not merit inclusion in a BLP. Even if written by Hemingway. Period. Collect (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You attempted to excise a good deal of material which does not fall under that description. Could you be more specific, please? --Pete (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The edit at issue here is clearly linked , per normal practice on Wikipedia. Is that specific enough for you? I am not John Cleese. Collect (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. You've given a reason for attempting to excise a lot of material, but only some of that material is relevant to the reason you've given. Could you be more specific, please? It would be useful to know exactly what you are seeking help for. --Pete (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to return to this if I may. The claim in question is the allegation raised by Milne that Gillard had one lived in the house at Fitzroy. The problem is that this was pulled from the Australian's website with the statement that it was untrue [7]. Should we be repeating the claim, even though we then follow with information about it being pulled? And if we can do that, how should it be worded? - Bilby (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The justification for this article existing at all is dubious. The absence of any charges, and non-existence of any evidence that Prime Minister Gillard did anything wrong, leaves us with some possibly dodgy union official behaviour, and not much else. But nobody from a union has been charge with anything either. The real story is that some people and some sections of the media have tried to turn a mountain into a molehill for political purposes, been fairly successful for a while, but eventually negated. If the article could be rewritten from that perspective, as a story about a failed attempt to smear a politician, perhaps it could be redeemed, but right now, I can't see it happening. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Bilby. This is a valid point, and I think Collect might have been trying to have an input in his own scorched-earth fashion. However, Gillard in her press conference on Thursday repeatedly referred to these allegations being published and withdrawn, as if the entire scandal was equally erroneous, when the fact is that only relatively minor points were disputed. Here she is: PM: Okay, if we can turn to other matters. For a number of months now, there has been a smear campaign circulating on the Internet relating to events 17 years ago. Much of the material in circulation is highly sexist. I've taken the view over time that I will not dignify this campaign with a response either. However, this morning something changed on that. The Australian newspaper republished a false and highly defamatory claim about my conduct in relation to these matters 17 years ago. It is a claim about me setting up a trust fund. A claim was first published by News Limited in relation to me and funds during the election campaign in 2007. On that occasion, the claim was retracted and apologised for. The claim was made again by Glenn Milne, a then columnist with the Australian newspaper, such a dim view was taken of his conduct in relation to that matter his employment was terminated. Despite these events, a similar claim has been recirculated by the Australian newspaper today. People may have already seen that the claim has been retracted and apologised for and that retraction and apology appears on the Australian web site and as I understand it on all News Limited web sites. In these circumstances, where I am seeing, recycled again, false and defamatory material attacking my character, I have determined that I will deal with these issues. I'm therefore happy to take questions on these matters. I am going to do that today.[8]

The Prime Minister is happy to deal with and take questions on these points, so she has therefore legitimised our careful use of them. The transcript above is from her own website, I might point out. I think that so long as we clearly stress that the reports were erroneous, that they were withdrawn, and that consequences resulted - and just how many times did she emphasise that Glenn Milne lost his job over it? - then we should feel no need to conceal mention of events which Gillard herself highlights. --Pete (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That's cool, but claim you're referring to above was that she set up a trust fund, which was repeated again in The Australian, and which was the trigger for the press conference. However, the false claim about her living arrangements wasn't raised in the press conference, and The Australian acknowledged that it was untrue in their retraction. So my concern is only about this one claim, whether or not a statement that the paper acknowledged was untrue should be in the article, and, if so, how to present it so as not to lead readers into thinking that it might be correct.

More generally, I'm not sure that publicly denying a false claim should be sufficient to make it ok in a BLP, but that's not really the concern here. - Bilby (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It is the claim over which Glenn Milne lost his job, and Gillard referred to it repeatedly in the course of the press conference. It has also been the subject of some media debate.[9] --Pete (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you are confusing the claim that Gillard had set up a trust fund, which is false but was raised in the press conference, and the claim that she lived in the house in Fitzroy, which is also false but was not raised in the press conference, and is currently in the article. In general, I don't see that denying a claim in a press conference makes it fair game for the article, but that's not the same claim as the one which is being raised here. - Bilby (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Both claims were made by Milne. The first in 2007, for which he lost his job (but was subsequently re-hired) and the second in 2011. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that Gillard is referring to Milne. No other journalist has had his employment terminated over this affair. Media opinion over the past two days has been that she seized upon the smaller error as a means to cast doubt on other allegations. But that's as may be. The fact remains that Gillard repeatedly referred to errors and withdrawals and apologies and terminations and she therefore highlighted allegations that fell into that category. --Pete (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

A couple of points. Milne was not terminated over this affair, but because of issues that arose during this affair. The distinction is odd, but I gather that it is an important one. And second, I guess a question for this board, is if someone has to publicly deny a false claim, that is then accepted as false, can we include that claim in the article and, if so, how do we approach it? That's not actually the question I want to address, because I disagree that she made any reference to her living arrangements in the press conference, but it might help further things to have clarity on that. - Bilby (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Nolan Godfrey continuse to state inacurate facts about himself and his playing career in order to mislead the lacrosse community and generate an income from his mispresenations.

1. Most of Nolans past is predicated on a partial truth. He allows the reader to believe these events were based on a longer period of time than actually occured.

Example: Nolan states he played for the Ohio Machine of the MLL. The real fact, he was invited to tryout during pre-selection. Nolan was cut from the Team before the 2012 season began. Nolan writes in his bio as if he made the team and played.

Example: Nolan was not traded to the Denver outlaws of the MLL earlier this year. He was invited to a one game tryout. Took a couple faceoffs and was not invited back.

He never signed contracts or showed up on either Teams roster. Nolan uses this Site to advance his career in order to gain respect and mislead young players and thier families to pay for lacrosse camps and lacrosse teams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawksf (talk • contribs) 11:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Replacing 'professional lacrosse player' with 'very average lacrosse player' is not acceptable unless you want to back it up with reliable sources that describe him as such. Some people might call that vandalism. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Saying that, there does appear to be a lot of info that isnt supported by the sources provided. Will take a closer look later. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• As stated clearly in Wikipedia conduct policies, "it is the goal of Wikipedia to adhere to a neutral point of view." Some statements and edits themselves that the initial editor (posting here in this noticeboard) has posted in the article undeniably lack a factual basis and border on violating Wiki No personal attacks terms. Furthermore, as the follow-up editor just stated, some would argue such statements rightfully fall under vandalism, libel, and other torts. Editors and administrators in this community act quickly and promptly and work to maintain the integrity of the site concerning the actions of both voluntary and inadvertent misconduct. Some users are unaware of how certain manners of conduct on Wiki are not approved of both by the Wiki community and outside of it.

Included in the types of editing that are highly discouraged and not approved of are those where the user that is editing an article has a Conflict of Interest with the subject of the article. That contradicts the fundamental neutrality Wiki strives for and this is not the forum for any personal issues one may have with another. In the meantime, it is suggested that the initial editor prompting this review seek greater knowledge of and begin to consistently use proper Wiki etiquette. Wiki is designed to be positive and productive for all and while its tenets of proper use aren't always clear at first they are simple to follow once being informed.

Pursuant to Hawksf claiming the need to raise the encyclopedic nature of the page, there were multiple areas of data needing additional citation which I corrected. Also adjusted or deleted were several areas of unsourced data that were unable to be easily verified. There were formatting issues on tables that were likewise amended per Wikipedia guidelines for MOS:DTT. Let's all maintain the good faith of Wiki editing and commentary, as edits made by users are assumed to be of that nature in principle. HillLaw2 (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC) HillLaw2 (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Please cite your verifiable reliable sources for this information, including your claim that the subject "scammed his way onto the Denver Outlaws"[10]. If you do not, and instead persist in attacking the subject, your actions will continue to be considered vandalism and you will end up being blocked.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how to edit this, but the link from the photo accompanying this article is wrong. The figure on the right is called Roger Wright, but the link is to the wrong Roger Wright. The figure in the photo is Roger Wright, director of the Proms and controller of BBC Radio 3, not a famous Scrabble player! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anne.rooney (talk • contribs) 08:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks.

The article is called Roger Wright (music administrator), so to fix this kind of error you just need to use a "piped link" (see WP:PIPE)

[[Roger Wright (music administrator)|Roger Wright]] Sean.hoyland - talk 10:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

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

I am the subject of this page. The section on Journalism career contains the following sentence that violates your editorial policy: "Her feminist views and bland style of dressing and appearance was criticised in the media stating that it led to her leaving Channel 4 News, since then there has been noticeably more fashion conscious dressing and facial make-up in her 2012 appearances in TV shows".. It is biased opinion and fabrication (note no citations for alleged criticism in the media). I don't want to get drawn into editing this entry now. But I would appreciate this one sentence being deleted. With thanks Samira Ahmed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samirrrra (talk • contribs) 11:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This has now been corrected. As you say, it was unsourced opinion, and as such inappropriate. Thank you for drawing our attention to the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Article: Tammy Duckworth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Tammy Duckworth is a politician and clearly a public figure, no question. WP:BLP, however, contains a policy on the exclusion of the date of birth of BLP subjects (shortcut: WP:DOB) which says that if a subject objects to the inclusion of their date of birth, we should simply list the year instead. The policy does not say that it is non-applicable if the subject is a public figure. The relevant sentence from the policy states "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year."

Back in September 2007, Duckworth requested that her exact birthdate be removed from her BLP on Wikipedia. There was a consensus at that time that it was indeed Duckworth who was making this objection, and as a result her date of birth was removed from her BLP. That discussion can be viewed here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive26#Tammy_Duckworth_.28closed.29

The most recent re-discussion of this on the article's Talk Page can be seen here: Talk:Tammy_Duckworth#Birthdate_and_mother.27s_maiden_name

For some time now, User:Themightywind has been re-inserting Duckworth's date of birth back into the article. Themightwindy says that WP:DOB does not apply because Duckworth is a public figure. I told him that WP:DOB does not make such an exception, and asked that he or she provide their rationale in light of the policy. You can see the latest iteration of that conversation between the user and I today with the last three article talk page comments here, here, and here.

Accordingly, my question for the BLP/N noticeboard is this: Does WP:DOB not apply if the subject of a BLP is a public figure? I believe it still applies, and would like others to comment. I will notify Themightywind about my follow-up posting here on BLP/N. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Themightywind notified here. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in the discussion implied any kind of "disregard if 'public figure'" clause whatsoever. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing in the WP:BLP policy that exempts notable people from the right to ask for their DOB to be removed and complying with that request. One of the arguments that is being given right now is to add it back in until we get confirmation that she still wants her birthdate out of the article. That is not supported by policy either. She asked, we determined that it was her that asked and we complied. Without evidence that she no longer objects we should not readd the exact birthdate to the article. GB fan 17:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

So Wikipedia is about censorship of public domain information about a Politician who is very well known, and currently engaged in election for US Congress and she don't want her birthday not publish on Wikipedia? get real. What happened to this policy of WP:NOTCENSORED It would seem your more concern with Tammy's happiness, rather then to publishing common knowledge information about a US Congressional candidate? No wonder Wikipedia has no respect?Themightywind (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If you've lost respect for Wikipedia (and respect matters to you), then go edit some other on-line encyclopaedia. Invoking NOTCENSORED here is not going to earn you the respect of your fellow editors. The feedback you are getting about policy in this area is right on target. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Censorship is not a nice thing which I sure you have great respect for?Themightywind (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Also, to answer my argument, with bold face threat is not WP:AGF?Themightywind (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted your latest re-addition of the subject's DOB, which you did after you had been told here of Wikipedia's policy on the matter. Please do not put it back again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And now I've blocked you for doing it again. Edit warring against BLP policy and against consensus will not get you want you want. Please think on this while blocked, and consider whether you wish to remain an editor here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Mariah O'Brien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of Scientologists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This edit by an IP added some very poorly sourced material to Mariah O'Brien. Another IP removed the Scientology-related part, but left the malformed "Cathegory: American Scientologists". Included in the original edit was the source truthaboutscientology.com, which has been discussed in the past and declared to be an unreliable source. Is there any reason why this source should not be added to the blacklist to prevent further use?

The same IP involved in the original edit also added O'Brien to List of Scientologists without any reference at all. This list is an obvious target for BLP violations and should be on many, many watchlists, but no one challenged or removed this unsourced addition by an IP in the nearly three weeks since the event.

I do not edit Scientology-related articles, so I ask that someone clean up Mariah O'Brien and remove her from the main list. If people could add that list to their watchlist and keep an eye out for similar additions, that would be helpful. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Remove category and listing. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all for cleaning this one up. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yolanda Pecoraro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of Scientologists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Apparently based on speculation that Pecoraro is being groomed to be the next wife of Tom Cruise, Yolanda Pecoraro has been added to List of Scientologists (directly below Mariah O'Brien) and appears in the category "American Scientologists". The sources for this are The Huffington Post and the Daily Mail, neither of which are great BLP sources, but WP:BLPCAT makes clear that we don't label people as adherents to any religious belief unless the person themselves says they are an adherent. I'm not that Pecoraro is even notable enough to have an article here, but can someone at least clean up the BLP violations? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure we would expect to find any objection from Pecoraro herself -- this source describes her as a "life-long member". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

What part of WP:BLPCAT do you not understand? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed category and listing. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Disagree .... she does state she's a Scientologist and it is relevant to her public life.

That category was correctly added. "....We are all Kosh...."  <-Babylon-5-> 19:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

All it requires, then, is a citation to a reliable source. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Can one of you please provide a link to the source where Pecoraro herself states she is a Scientologist? I may be missing it, but I saw no such statement in any if the sources used. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed this again. Please read your "sources" people. The Daily Mail (not a reliable source at the best of times) says "said to be" - thus disqualifying itself immediately. So all you've got is the Huffington Post - calling this reliable is laughable.--Scott Mac 20:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Check the source given by Nomoskedasticity "The Christian Post". (Yeah, I know the Daily Mail is a tabloid :) ).

The source is there...and no, I won't touch your revert, Scott Mac. "....We are all Kosh...."  <-Babylon-5-> 16:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The question is whether she is quoted e.g. in a newspaper talking about her involvement in Scientology. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've read all of the sources previously used in articles and/or offered here and I see no such statement. Can either of you give me a link to where Pecoraro makes any such statement? If there isn't one, we cannot add her to lists or categories, per WP:BLP. I have no reason to believe that the sources are incorrect, but we go by what people say about their own beliefs (whether it is Scientology or any other religious belief). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Pancake Parlour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a section in Pancake Parlour which discusses allegations that the business owners are Scientologists. That is the longest paragraph in this four paragraph article, and uses the unreliable source truthaboutscientology.com (see Part I, above) and an abandoned blog which purports to be from one of the owners. The entire section is clearly nothing more then an attack on the owners of the business and needs to be removed on the basis of sourcing and undue weight. 18:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed. Lacks interdependent verification by a reliable source. Another watchlist would be good.--Scott Mac 18:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Didn't expect to see you round these parts, Scott. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I would think this information might well not belong in the article even if at some point it were to be reliably sourced. The religion of the owner of a business is generally irrelevant information, unless the business itself is religiously oriented, or it has attained relevance for some other reason as in the recent Chick-Fil-A situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Tommy Davis (Scientology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP added Davis to Category:LGBT people from the United States a month ago. I don't have this on my watchlist but spotted it while following through some of the incidents detailed above. Maybe someone could check into this? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed. Apparently vandalism as there is absolutely nothing in the article to justify such a cat. LadyofShalott 01:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW, LGBT ≠ gay. LadyofShalott 01:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I know that, but it makes a better title. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This diff restored two edits that I had identified as BLP violations.  The other editor I have no previous contact with, but has taken up the mantle of "owner" of Faithful Word Baptist Church when I tried to clean up some of the POV issues there.  There is already much talk about notice boards on the talk page of the article, which I have come into this today as an uninvolved editor.  Please advise.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

 Comment: It seems the main concern on the talk page is whether or not publications by the Southern Poverty Law Center are reliable sources for negative BLP content. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Unscintillating, you had no right to remove these AfD comments of another editor, Insomesia. If there's a legitimate violation in an article itself, fine. But these were comments in a discussion and nothing warranted them being removed. I also see no evidence of your allegation that Insomesia has taken ownership of the article; only that he is trying to improve the article. That is a serious allegation and you should assume good faith. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are you editing while logged out?  What account or accounts do you have on the English Wikipedia?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not have an account. But what does that have to do with the issue at hand? --76.189.108.102 (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

We know from your edit history that you don't normally agree with StAnselm, so I think reasonable people can conclude that you have been editing Wikipedia for more than three days.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are making this discussion about me, but StAnselm and I have been involved in the same discussions on several articles over the past few days. And it is no secret that we disagree on the general issues involved. But when I believe he's correct, I tell him, as evidenced here and here. So please stop making unfriendly, out-of-context implications. And instead of claiming what "reasonable people can conclude," perhaps you should assume good faith. Again, I will remind you of what an administrator taught me. --76.189.108.102 (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You introduced yourself to me with this diff.  This diff is filled with erroneous opinions represented on your authority as facts, and escalatory language.  Your first edit on August 24 was to revert an admin, and the page was soon protected by another admin to stop edit warring.  Do you agree or deny that you have previously edited as Special:Contributions/76.189.110.167?  Unscintillating (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been referred to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/76.189.110.167.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Those are based on what reliable sources have reported on an extremely outspoken pastor. His arrest, and subsequent dismissal, his website and his occupation, etc are all covered in reliable sources and were considered and not used in the article as I felt they were not on topic of the article. It has been suggested that the article be moved from being about the business to being about the person. If so all that information would be in the biography article whereas it is not needed in the church article. Insomesia (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why you restored the edits after you were informed that they were BLP violations.  You seem to have the understanding that BLP violations are ok on talk pages, just as does the logged out editor.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Insomesia, I agree with Unscintillating that your reply did not explain why you reverted his revert, even though I believe you had every right to do it. I think you should have simply addressed the specific complaints he brought here. I should remind Unscintillating that, as an administrator recently taught me, IPs are human too. ;) --76.189.108.102 (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP policy applies everywhere, not just article space. A BLP violation in article space is still a BLP violation if in a discussion. That being said, I have not looked at the edits in question, and therefore have no opinion on whether those edits constitute a BLP violation. LadyofShalott 01:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lady. I said that I saw nothing that "warranted them being removed" from the AfD discussion, not that they couldn't be removed under any circumstances. Can you give your input on whether Unscintillating removing these AfD comments was warranted? Thanks. :) --76.189.108.102 (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi 76, I stand corrected about your meaning; sorry about that. Anyway, without a reference? Yeah, I can see why he removed those comments. Stuff like that must be referenced. LadyofShalott 02:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Haha, no problem. :) I guess it can be hard sometimes to sift through a lot of comments. Thanks for your reply, Lady! --76.189.108.102 (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You'er welcome. :) LadyofShalott 02:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Anyone feel like filing a report or two to 3RRN? The article history offers some rich pickings. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• This thing has WP:COATRACK all over it. I have no idea what the polity of a KJV-only independent Baptist church is, but what it comes down to is (a) a nutty preacher saying some pretty poisonous (and probably well-enough-documented) things, (b) a gun nut at a Ron Paul event who is a member and who may or may not be driven mad by his preacher's mouthings-off, and of course (c) the SPLC hate-listing the place. It's hard to say who the actual subject of the article is; in a sense it seems to be all about the media flap, given that nothing more seems to be reportable about any of the possible article subjects outside of events so reported. It's possible that the main BLP problem here is that in their eagerness to find another Obama-hating nutcase, the various advocacy groups reporting this—or perhaps our own editors—have been rather sloppy in trying to add this all up. Mangoe (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

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

An apologist for the Iranian regime (I believe his name is Reza Eskandiar or something very similiar) repeatedly amends my Wikipedia entry to suggest my reporting on the Iranian presidential election and its aftermath was inaccurate and dishonest. This is wrong and libellous. He has been temporarily barred from amending my entry on previous occasions, but repeats the offence as soon as that bar is lifted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfletch1956 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Most of the problematic edits seem to come from User:Sepahbash. I've left a caution note for him at User talk:Sepahbash#August 2012. Let's see if he learns or not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

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

"Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy,"

This is Colton Cosmic. I could use a little help removing the privacy-violating information from the article of Phoenix Jones, who is a living person, and thus covered by WP:BLP. He is also a construct, the common name "Jones" representing any ordinary individual, and "Phoenix" a bird that is able to rise from ashes. To further explain, the city of Seattle, Washington, USA, has costumed anti-crime activists that model themselves along the lines of comic book superheroes. They undertake regular neighborhood patrols, and for example famously fought off a mob of anarchists that were firebombing a courthouse on May Day.[11] As a rule, they maintain secret identities, not so much to hide themselves, as to protect their families and close friends from begrudging lawbreakers. In the case of Phoenix Jones, Guardian of Seattle, however, a group of Wikipedia editors made his article an exposé, and determinedly "unmasked" him, in comments linking his personal and unrelated Facebook account[12], and a court database for his traffic infractions[13]. One of our fellow editors used a racial epithet against him.[14] Admin OhNoitsJamie, who edit wars then locks articles he is involved in[15] and is basically ignorant of policy[16] and is a key force in the unmasking of Phoenix Jones (check Google) and personally endangers Jones' wife and family. So where do we go from here? I'm asking that you join me to apply policy, from WP:BLP: "people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private," "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability," "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, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." Thanks in advance, Colton Cosmic.

• The last time this blocked user tried to sockpuppet, the edit was removed. Would someone else like to do the honors? The issues he is complaining about are very much the same and have been considered previously. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I am sympathetic to the concerns expressed, but this appears to be a case of the cat being well out of the bag already. When you stand in front of reporters and say "In addition to being Phoenix Jones, I am also Ben Fodor, father and brother", your secret identity is no longer secret. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I've blocked the IP for block evasion. I'm not seeing a BLP violation, and agree that the issues have already been considered and addressed several times. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Please take a look at the recent addition of this material. It's pretty messy.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried to clean it up - it was a melange of material relevant to the BLP and material which was editorial in nature, and material which did not belong in the BLP at all. Collect (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for beginning the clean-up. It still needs more work. If no one else has a go at it, I may get around to it. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done

the page title Todd Akin rape and pregnancy controversy‎ inaccurately implies that a living person has some connection to an awful crime, when in fact its just about a really stupid comment. There was an incipient page move war on Friday that I reported to ANI, but it got archived after discussion stalled on a perfect replacement name. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive765#page_move_war It needs to be moved NOW to something that is at least BLP compliant while discussion over the best name / deletion is conducted. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it needed moving but Todd Akin 'legitimate rape' and pregnancy comment controversy is far too unwieldy. Probably not worth addressing while it's at Afd, but I am sure we can come up with a much crisper title.--ukexpat (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Series of recent edits, all unsourced and well-intentioned, have turned this into a first-person memoir. I'm hesitant to revert everything--the editor is presumably the article's subject, new to Wikipedia, and may well be making some valid corrections. But it's become an autobiography. 99.168.82.114 (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Depuffed - really do not be afraid to take pruning shears to such pieces. Collect (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping--subject and I have a mutual friend; I felt uneasy going in and clear-cutting. 99.168.82.114 (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It appears that de-puffing will require continued efforts. See user's edit history below. 99.168.82.114 (talk) 02:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Tiggtiff (talk · contribs)

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

At Mila Kunis, there is a Good Article Reassessment review at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mila Kunis/1. A disinterested, third-party admin who does not regularly contribute to or review articles about "sex symbols" is requested for an objective outside opinion. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Lisa Marie Presley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of Scientologists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Following the, uh, conversation at Talk:List of Scientologists#Lisa Marie Presley: Now a former Scientolgist, Presley was moved in the list from "members" to "former members". Meanwhile, in Lisa Marie Presley she is still in Category:American Scientologists. There do not appear to be any reliable sources offering more than conjecture, and nothing from Presley herself (at least nothing that was offered in that discussion - I haven't looked myself). Is she a Scientologist or a former Scientologist? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Rachel Miner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Actor Rachel Miner is in Category:American Scientologists with no mention of Scientology in the body of the article (and therefore, no source). That may be because someone removed it over two years ago. According to the edit summary, "The reference does not mention Miner" (the link is dead now). Even if it had mentioned Miner, this is the same scientology.org source that is considered to be unreliable when someone appears to be promoting the CoS. An editor removed the category once before in 2008, but it was later replaced along with the scientology.org source. Perhaps someone can fix this and we can check back in 2014? Thanks. 03:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Stephen Eckelberry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Karen Black (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have no idea why Stephen Eckelberry is considered notable enough to have an article here, but he has been in Category: American Scientologists for over two years with no source. The category was added by user:Tymes, who also added the sentence "She has been a Scientologist since the 1970's and despite some 2006 rumors to the contrary, she and her husband are still active in the religion" to Karen Black (to whom Eckelberry is apparently married). Note that the source used does not mention Eckelberry in relation to Scientology. Can someone deal with this by finding a better source or removing the category (or the entire article)? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

This article accuses a person of terrorism with no reliable sources. The article's creator keeps removing the blpprod template. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Now deleted by User:Materialscientist. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Maxamed axmed gurxan. he is member of parliament in somalia^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceelafweynngo (talk • contribs) 17:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

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

I need some advice from BLP editors, please. I would like to edit or remove two sentences that are incorrect on the "Tom Luna" page. They do have sources attached, but the sources on not "reliable" per Wikipedia rules because they are opinion pieces. These opinion pieces got it wrong. They claim Tom Luna is the only state education chief who does not have an education background or experience as a classroom teacher or school administrator. According to The Council of Chief State School Officers, at least 15 state chiefs do not have a teaching background. Here are two examples from news articles where the Arizona chief and Oregon chief do not have education backgrounds: http://www.azed.gov/superintendent/biography/ and http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2011/01/state_superintendent_susan_cas.html. For full disclosure, per the conflict of interest policy, I do work for Tom Luna and the Idaho State Department of Education. I am reaching out to the Noticeboard to make sure this information is corrected on the Wikipedia page in the proper way. Thank you for your advice in how to correct this information. --MelissaMcGrath (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)MelissaMcGrath

"Olivesoftware.com" != WP:RS by a country mile. I removed all the "silly season" stuff - but others should keep an eye on this one. Collect (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Rilk Dacleu Idrac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello. There is a lot of incorrect and misleading information regarding the biography of Rilk Dacleu Idrac.

Please view all his references sited in the article, they do not link to credible sources, they are masked links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staceyrickevetter (talk • contribs) 05:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Horrid mess - now pruned. Collect (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Repruned after SPA editor revisited this. Collect (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Autobiography that should never have been promoted to article space. Help requested re: the article's author and subject, who's using article space as a resume. 99.168.82.114 (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like he fails WP:PROF and WP:WRITER. I'd nominate him for deletion if I were you.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but I'd prefer to let someone else do the honors. 99.168.82.114 (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Davis (author).--ukexpat (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Not sure who is is or whether he's really deserving of a Wikipedia article, but his article seems to be a vandalism-magnet. Somebody should keep an eye on the article, because I probably won't... AnonMoos (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion, which should solve the problem. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

The article on Rodney Glunder goes into quite some detail about drug-related arrests. We received an OTRS complaint at ticket:2012071410005041. I have read the sources to the best of my ability (they are in dutch), and don't see anything terribly wrong, but I am certainly not fluent in the language. I'd appreciate another look. I was only looking with an eye to accuracy, and am not claiming the incidents are significant. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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

We've had some legal threats from someone who is apparently the subject of Dan Roodt. He's blocked now because of that, but he's claiming the article damages him and has asked for it to be deleted - see User talk:Danroodt. Several editors have been cleaning it up a bit, but I thought I'd mention it here in case there are any further issues with it that might need addressing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

An IP user is persistently attempting to add negative unsourced material about living people to this page, in spite of having his attention drawn to BLP policy. PatGallacher (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Is

Luna has never held a position as a teacher or principal

The proper sort of claim in a BLP? The following was also repeatedly inserted, I but I think the editor gave up on the "just prior"

He graduated from Thomas Edison State College in 2002 with an online bachelor's degree in liberal arts with an emphasis in measurement science[4][3]—earned just prior to entering the Superintendent race in 2006, fulfilling a minimum requirement for the post

Which appears designed to stress "online" and "just prior" implying that it was a diploma mill sort of degree at best. Silly season strikes again. Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Daniel P. Gordon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP editor has been edit warring with other users and most recently issuing LEGAL THREATS. I am not currently sure of the substance of this person's views regarding the Daniel P. Gordon article (though I reverted the threat placed in article space), but the situation deserves the attention of someone with the tools to block editors and lock-down pages. This editor has been warned against vandalism many times regarding this article, but it could be that they have a case to make (therefore I left their blanking edit intact), but making legal threats in article space is unacceptable. Guðsþegn (talk) 03:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for one week for the threat. Normally, a registered account is indeffed for a legal threat, but IPs are not indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Dan James Pantone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has an unusual history. It was created in 2006 by User:Jamirabastos. In 2008, Jamirabastos stopped editing at Wikipedia. Recently, some negative information was added to the article. Jamirabastos came out of the woodwork, blanked the article, and requested speedy deletion. I declined the speedy delete and restored the article, including the negative section ("Photograph sales"), although I had some concerns about leaving it in. Jamirabastos then removed the section, using the same edit summary he did for blanking the article.

I suspect the material does not belong in the article, although I'm not happy with the way Jamirabastos went about it, but I'd like others to look. The two areas of focus, in my view, are WP:BLPCRIME and reliable sourcing. I can't confidently comment on Brazilian sources, although my guess is they are sufficiently reliable. BLPCRIME is the more important and relevant policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

All this talk about BLPCRIME is moot, as the images in question are certified and registered with the Peruvian "Copyright Office" ("Dirección de Autor"). To accuse someone of "illegally selling images" that are certified by the government to be his copyrighted property is defamation, nothing else, and does not belong on Wikipedia, no matter what the source. To see a copy of the certification giving Dan James Pantone a copyright on the images, please visit the "Peruvian Copyright Office" and to see the authorization of the Matis leader, Bina Tucum Matis, please see the image release form. These videos of the Matis were shot in Peru at the same time as Christian Baumeister's award-winning "Amazon Alive series" and the Amazon Alive Project was partially funded by the National Geographic Channel. All the cast members signed authorizations and were paid as is the standard for the film industry. None of the Matis has ever complained. What is happening here is that a "Carbon Cowboy" named David John Nilsson from Australia is trying to defame the person (Dan James Pantone) who exposed Nilsson's plot to scam the Matsés People of Peru and steal their land and carbon rights as revealed by 60 Minutes in their television program, "The Carbon Cowboy".

I have restored the material deleted by Jamirabastos. He asserted this material relied on blogs and tabloids. The sources are Rádio CBN, a Brazilian news radio network, and O Estado de S. Paulo, Brazil's fifth largest newspaper.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you A. B. and Orlady for your excellent research and discovering who really is behind this defamation and why. This subject of Carbon Cowboys is very important, and the very survival of the Amazon Rainforest (and our planet) may be at stake, not to mention the survival of the indigenous people of South America. In the television program by 60 Minutes, Nilsson is actually caught on hidden camera revealing his plans to log the 3 million hectares of Amazon Rainforest that he claims to control and plant palm oil plantations in its place. Please do not let a self-declared Carbon Cowboy such as Nilsson destroy the credibility of those who revealed Nilsson's "Crimes against Indigenous People" (as he himself puts it) and his plans to destroy the Amazon Rainforest. Please note that defamation laws are very strict in Australia and that 60 Minutes has to be able to prove everything that they put in their television programs. In contrast, sources from South America are notorious for being unreliable and David John Nilsson has presumably spent a lot of money bribing "journalists" in South America to print articles that defame his enemies like this Peruvian newspaper article. These are obvious lies of David John Nilsson accusing Stephen Rice and Liam Bartlett of 60 Minutes of committing crimes in Peru. So much for South American newspapers being reliable sources. Are Wikipedians going to add this defamation from a South American newspaper to the BLPs of Stephen Rice and Liam Bartlett. Of course not. I suggest changing the BLP in question to include the reliable sources (i.e. 60 Minutes) and remove the incorrect information and obvious defamation from unreliable South American sources about the images being illegal and unauthorized when this is obviously not the case, as proven above. In addition, I proposed creating a new Wikipedia article on David Nilsson. Jamirabastos (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with the reliability of those media outlets, I believe you're quite right on that account, but those are essentially criminal allegations that haven't been tested in court, so far as I know. WP:BLPCRIME states "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." I believe the material should be removed.

In addition, I also personally am in the business of selling photographs (you can verify this via the NYT link on my user page), and I find the allegation of $300,000 in income from photo sales off a web site to be... well, extraordinary would be a kind word. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The Radio CBN citation specifically addresses the $300,000 photo sales allegation.

Here's some additional history. MATSES-related controversies started with complaints here:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Dec#matses.org related links and articles

This led to 2 articles being tagged for notability, then nominated for deletion:

• MATSES
  • Talk:MATSES
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MATSES - subsequently "courtesy deleted"
    • Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/MATSES - subsequently "courtesy deleted"

• Dan James Pantone (the subject of this discussion)
  • Talk:Dan James Pantone
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan James Pantone - subsequently "courtesy deleted"
    • The discussion was heated and inconclusive. Many viewed this and the article about Dr. Pantone's organization, MATSES, to be promotional. At the time, I supported keeping the article based on others' assessment that his academic publishing made him possibly notable. I'm not so sure anymore, especially in light of our subsequent tightening of notability standards for BLPs.

Other pages of note:

• Matsés_people — note the references to Dr. Pantone
• User talk:Cuchullain/Archive 4##Me — we temporarily lost a prolific editor after User:Matses accused him of racism in the AfD dscussions and templated his talk page with warnings.
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peru/Archive 2#Notability of Dan James Pantone and MATSES
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive7#Is this botanist notable?
• User talk:Matses — see page history for some relevant comments Matses subsequently deleted.

Notwithstanding some accusations to the contrary, I have tried to take a balanced approach to this biography over the last six years, guarding it against occasional drive-by attacks. Presently the only reliable sources that I know that speak to Dr. Pantone's non-academic activities are those press reports I cited. Otherwise, his notability (for our purposes) hinges on the academic notability tests.

I encourage others to look through these discussions.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the analysis and history. However, we still haven't addressed WP:BLPCRIME. My problem is I'm unfamiliar with Brazilian law, the only sources are in Portuguese, and machine translations are not great, particularly when precision is important. It's not clear to me whether Pantone is being accused of a crime or not. And our article uses weasely language saying that "under Brazilian law, the photographs were taken inappropriately." I have no idea what that means.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I probably should've written the material more clearly. In essence, a Brazilian organization, UNIVAJA, tried to accuse him of breaking Brazilian law by taking pictures of indigenous Brazilians without their permission. Radio CBN cited a letter from Pantone noting that the photos were all legally taken in Peru; when Radio CBN confronted UNIVAJA, UNIVAJA sort of hemmed and hawed without apologizing.

On a separate issue, there is this report in Indian Country Today Media Network about a dispute between the Matsés with Pantone as their advocate on the one hand and an Australian developer on the other:

• Scam on Fringe of Climate Change Involves Land-Grabs in Peruvian Rainforest

This should probably be added to the article. I did not realize when I first saw it that this was from a reliable source that we've used a lot.

After a little more checking, I just now found this Sydney Morning Herald article on the same issue:

• Carbon cowboys

and this 60 Minutes episode:

• The Carbon Cowboy

There are also some environmental activism sites addressing this, too, but I don't know if they meet our WP:RS requirements.^[17][18] There may be additional sources in this list of Google hits.

Interestingly, some drive-by attacks on Pantone's article have come from Australia; something was sufficiently bad to be oversighted a few days ago. There's also what looks like a scurrilous attack site being developed by an investigator in Australia (much of it is still in the "lorem ipsum" phase.^[19][20] I doubt these Australian connections are purely coincidental, given the carbon cowboy controversy and I would not be surprised to see further attacks on this article from Australia..

Note that we have an article on an Australian by the same name, but I don't think it's the same person.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I don't think the two Nilsson's are the same. Your summation of what happened was kind of what I got out of it. If Brazilian law is similar to American law about publicity rights, then it would not be a crime; it would be a tort, and BLPCRIME wouldn't apply. But I think in one of the translations I saw the phrase "federal prosecutor", which gave me some pause.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The attack site being developed now also slams 60 Minutes -- consistent with my suspicion that the site is being developed by partisans of the so-called Australian "Carbon Cowboy". --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

After reading this new content, I formed the idea that Pantone may not be clearly notable for any one area of activity, but he probably is notable for the combination of things he has done. (He was a respectable academic, but not the kind of superstar that WP:ACADEMIC requires; he's made a mark in conservation, but he's not a recognized major figure; and now he's becoming a "figure of international controversy".) Since he's only marginally notable, the publication in Wikipedia of negative content about him could be more damaging than it would for a world-famous person who lives in the public eye. I perceive the subject of the "Photograph sales" item to be peripheral to his work. Accordingly, although I think it's worth mentioning in the article, it doesn't deserve a lot of attention. Lacking evidence that the allegations against Pantone were pursued in court or were connected to some larger issues (such as a smear campaign by the Carbon Cowboy), this seems like a minor dust-up that occurred two years ago and happened to get reported in the news media. Thus, the current level of attention in the article seems WP:UNDUE.

On the other hand, the "Carbon Cowboy" story may be central to Pantone's main areas of activity, and it probably deserves discussion in the article if a clear picture emerges (from independent reliable sources) on what Pantone is doing (beyond giving interviews) to interject himself between the Matsés and the cowboy.

Is Pantone believed to be in any danger from these guys in Australia? --Orlady (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't buy the argument that BLPCRIME doesn't apply, while charity fraud (which is the allegation I'm speaking of) is usually prosecuted civilly, it is absolutely a crime in many jurisdictions. I can't speak to *this* jurisdiction, however, and I don't speak Spanish, so.... --j⚛e decker^talk 14:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese, I think. I don't know whether BLPCRIME applies, as I've already stated. Not sure what A.B. thinks. What exactly is "charity fraud", and in what jurisdictions is it a crime? And is that what we're talking about here, and is it under Brazilian or Peruvian law? It's hard to apply anything when there's so little clarity.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Orlady, I think you've summed things up well. I have removed the photo sales section for now unless someone strongly believes it should still be included. I'm traveling and may not have time to add the carbon cowboy material but I think that does belong in this article using the reliable news sources above.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Portugese, yes, of course you're right. Orlady, A. B., yes, it's at mininum undue. With respect to the question of whether the allegations are allegations of criminal behavior: Some charity fraud cases are criminal, e.g, [21]. You want to show me that for sure that (the alleged) promising to photographic purchasers that money would go towards a cause, and then does not, is clearly not a criminal in this jurisdiction? I believe the onus is on the folks including the material to show that BLPCRIME doesn't apply, actually. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

An interesting view that the burden is on the includer to show that BLPCRIME does not apply - not sure if it's true, but from a BLP perspective, it makes some sense. Quibble: certain levels of fraud are criminal conduct in probably every jurisdiction in the U.S. I just don't think there's a separate crime of "charity fraud".--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd say in most cases it's pretty clear whether an allegation is one with "criminal" overtones or not, and I agree there may be doubt here. And yeah, I found a couple news articles that used the phrase charity fraud specifically in regard to laws or proposed laws, but at the core it's just a type of fraud, I'd guess. Not being a lawyer, though.... my opinion ain't worth a lot more than you paid for it.  :) --j⚛e decker^talk 23:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Rod Zimmer's wife, Maygan Sensenberger, was in the news a few days ago when she was arrested for causing a disturbance on an airplane. I reverted the addition of the information because it was the subject's wife and not the subject who made the news. Additional stories, [22] and [23], have indicated that the subject was involved, first as a passenger on the flight and later as the source of Sensenberger outburst. At first it was a clear breach of BLP and now it's not as clear. Requesting advice on how to proceed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It is a BLP issue - but it is also a "taboid" issue -- there is far too little substance at this point to add it to the BLP of the accused's husband. Collect (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That's what I feared. I don't want this to become a coatrack for the sensationalism of the story. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This is about the subject, he's the only reason this is major news. It's covered in all the major Canadian daily newspapers, as well as major papers in the US & UK. Canadian senators are rarely news in Canada, most people never heard of him until this incident. His name & face are spattered all over, and issues about him being married to a much younger woman are prominent. Info came out they were together separately for "several years" before they revealed after she turned 21, meaning when they started dating she was at least technically a teenager and possibly a minor. source Every news article mentions Zimmer, so to say it has nothing to do with him is a joke. You can easily cover this while maintaining BLP, newspapers are printing it without risk of libel so we can too. --208.38.59.161 (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It mentions Zimmer, but does not say anything that can be used about him. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Anon above has offered a paragraph and I would like it to be reviewed before adding it to the article. It's on the article's talk page --Walter Görlitz (talk)

• Michael Palin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 67.184.180.81 (talk · contribs)

We have an IP who is insisting, in no uncertain terms, that Palin is narrating the series of The Onion nature documentary spoofs titled The Horrifying Planet. I have directed the IP to the wikipolicies regarding unsourced material at this thread Talk:Michael_Palin#Horrifying_Planet. I am at my limit for removing the unsourced material so if anyone else can explain things better than I have please feel free to do so. Also if anyone can find info that he is doing the narration then please add it sources to the article as needed. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 03:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing but unreliable gossip on the interwebs. I found no reliable source connecting Palin with Horrifying Planet. Binksternet (talk) 06:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Unsourced BLP violations and the mugshot were removed by ThePenofDoom and I. No other glaring BLP violations. Electric Catfish 22:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Balance issues and sourcing to primary sources (the Canadian equivalent to indictments, I think). Seems like he's a "bad guy", possible a "very bad guy", but the article is a bit too pointy in that regard, with month-by-month listings of events. Needs cleanup by someone who's willing to put a little time into it. Studerby (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to help here. One of the issues that strikes me is that many of the arrest sub-sections are not sourced and are therefore possible BLP violations. Electric Catfish 20:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed some of the unsourced information and have requested other editors on to provide an image (other than the mugshot) on the article's talk page. Electric Catfish 20:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Anne K. Block (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Today, for the third straight day, I have returned to an article that I had submitted with 30+ primary references and nearly 100 inline sourcings to find that all of the work and references are deleted without explanation and replaced by a first person unsourced promotion piece written from the subjects perspective. No regard is shown for previous work or for the community process, despite attempts to engage and discuss possible issues on the talk page.

Please see talk page for my attempts to engage subject in process. I also explain why this biography is of considerable interest to the public. It is worth noting that the subject does not object to the biography, but instead prefers to change the article, removing all inline sourcing and all references, then editing the content into a first and third person unsourced diatribe. In addition, several of her deletions and rewrites have introduced libelous, defamatory, unsourced and unrelated materials to the page. I have discussed my intent to write an accurate article on the talk page, as well as my hope that subject or those close to subject could participate in process. Instead they delete the sourced material and then use the article to write unsourced material about themselves. No explanations are given for why the references - which are all primary sources - have been removed. It is also worth noting that the editor who keeps removing all of the content has a user name similar to the subject and writes in the first person, introducing anecdotes on personal knowledge alone.

Most Recent major alterations to page:

Today - Over 30 source materials and over 90 inline references removed without discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anne_K._Block&diff=509874666&oldid=509870159

Yesterday - Over 20 references removed, potentially libelous and defamatory information about unrelated third parties introduced

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anne_K._Block&diff=509700439&oldid=509689344 — L8incoub3rt (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Might be worth contacting the editor on her Talk page with some info on RS/BLP/CoI etc. I note you've commented on the article Talk, but if she's a new and inexperienced editor, she may not think to look there. If it's on her Talk page, she'll at least get a big yellow notification. --GenericBob (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, will do. L8incoub3rt (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Putting aside the conflict issue, the article, which was only recently drafted by L8, is in desperate need of a rewrite. As it stands, it is essentially an attack piece. I made the tiniest of dents, but it will take some time to do it properly, and I'm not altogether sure what we will be left with, or whether the article is even tenable.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne K. Block (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

László Csizsik-Csatáry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is not a biography. It is slanderous accusations from news articles around a current court case. László Csatáry has a family and friends and accomplishments. This is just a compilation of articles meant to paint a picture and not tell an unbiased account of the man. This is hatred text and caters to an agenda and is not an account of the man. This article should be removed or rewritten by people who actually knew the man, such as myself, and not just biased comments clipped from news sources. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not biased clips of misinformation. As the case proceeds, he is currently being found innocent of various accusations mentioned. I expect the article to be updated as the case progresses, but the editing is restricted to people who obviously don't know and don't like the man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.19.225 (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: the article is locked.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The singer/songwriter also appeared in Howard Zinn's The People Speak. I would like that to be included in her biography

Thank You, Brenda hall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.52.233.85 (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you please provide a reference for it? Electric Catfish 12:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

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

This material appears in her biography is untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.148.239 (talk) 04:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism - though sadly unnoticed for some days. I've removed it now. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I shouldn't be surprised, but that bio is in terrible shape as far as unsourced and repeated material, especially about relationships and children, ect. Anybody want to help copy edit it? --Mollskman (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Can BLPN regulars have a look at: Wikipedia:RSN#More_claims_of_unreliability:_Illinois_Family_Institute_.28IFI.29. It has been claimed at Talk:Illinois_Family_Institute that the sources aren't reliable because of WP:BLP. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times at WP:RS/N. The SPLC has opinions and is noted for its opinions. Its opinions are citable as its opinions. It is not usable for making satements of "fact" in articles covered by WP:BLP. This is a matter discussed and with agreement from "conservatives", "liberals", etc. This noticeboard is, moreover, inapt as no edits affected by WP:BLP have been made, AFAICT, on the SPLC article. Posting on the "wrong noticeboard" does not impress me, nor, I daresay, the other denizens here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

This notice is cross-posted to appease those "agreeable" editors who don't seem to accept SPLC as a source for much of anything. In this way we have made notice at both boards while keeping the discussion in one place. Thank you for your understanding in a somewhat frustrating and ongoing issue. Insomesia (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Collect has it right with respect to the use of SPLC, although I see how this got to this noticeboard, [[24]] is arguing it's a BLP issue because of the naming of Paul Cameron by SPLC in relationship to the designation. So long as the association with Cameron is absolutely clearly in SPLC's voice, not Wikipedia's, I don't see an problem. --j⚛e decker^talk 13:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I was one of the editors who raised the BLP issue and suggested posting it here. It has nothing to do with the SPLC discussion at WP:RSN (of which I have had no part). The BLP issues at Illinois Family Institute came up because (1) an SPLC blog was cited to link the organization to a living person, (2) reliably sourced criticism was added concerning that person. Now, the only way the person is connected to the organization is through the claim on the blog, so it seems to be invalid. In other words, criticism of a living individual is being smuggled into the article. So it's also an issue of undue weight - the proposed addition would mean that 1/3 of the article would be about someone who has no connection to the organization. But please don't connect this issue to the SPLC postings at WP:RSN. StAnselm (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. here is part of IFI's response to SPLC making that linkage, so the idea there is *some* tenuous connection isn't disputed, but it's argued by IFI that it's quite a minor one apparently. I'm sympathetic to the idea that mentioning the researcher is a BLP problem in this context in the IFI article. I don't think the whole SPLC rationale has to be thrown out, but the name seems a problem. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What's all this about a blog? The cited source is SPLC's Intelligence Report; their highly respected journal. There is no BLP concern here. The facts presented about Cameron, LaBarbera and Higgins are well-researched by SPLC, published in their peer-reviewed organ, and should not be in doubt unless challenged by a similarly respected source. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

"Blog" refers not to SPLC, but to the fact that the association between IFI (the article involved) and PC (the living person involved) is that IFI published some of PC's research in a blog post. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC) --j⚛e decker^talk 17:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The blog referred to was Hatewatch, which was the basis of the assertion. StAnselm (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It is of no consequence whether or not SPLC's Intelligence Report publication is "highly respected"; it still fails to meet the standards for a reliable source set down in our BLP policy, and thus is not usable as a source of factual information concerning living persons. For those who would argue this point, I suggest you figure out how to show that it meets the standards, rather than relying on a fallacious appeal to authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belchfire (talk • contribs)

It has already been argued, in numerous previous discussions, how SPLC publications meet RS. I suggest consulting RSN archives. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The irony of your appeal to authority in pointing my appeal to authority should be obvious. However, to address the key concern, here are scholarly citations to the Intelligence Report journal of SPLC: Search results. Note the phrase "cited by xx" under each entry, which you can click on to find out who cited the journal, clicking further to read each article and find out how they used the cite. On the first two pages of Google Scholar search results you will find more than 100 citations of Intelligence Report. Picking one, we find California State University Stanislaus and Sonoma researchers using Intelligence Report as a reference for their study called "Hate Online: A Content Analysis of Extremist Internet Sites". Selecting another, we find Darren J. Molloy, a Research Fellow at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where he teaches about the history of political extremism, writing in his Homegrown Revolutionaries: An American Militia Reader, citing the Intelligence Report on page 307, an article from Fall 1998 called "James Wickstom, Other Extremists Warn Against Y2K". Molloy also cites SPLC's "False Patriots: The Threat of Anti-Government Extremists" from a 1996 Klanwatch/Militia Task Force report. Anyway, the cites go on and on and on. The Intelligence Report is highly respected and widely cited by scholars. Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a RS issue; it's a BLP issue. Different standards apply. Check it out: WP:NOTRELIABLE Belchfire-TALK 17:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Top level scholarly journals are perfectly suitable to BLPs. There is no restriction. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet, why don't you read the policy instead of throwing up irrelevance? Your argument is of no consequence, because:

1. If SPLC relies on scholarly sources, that merely has the effect of making it a tertiary source.
2. It doesn't matter who else relies on SPLC, we have our own policies and the BLP policy is non-negotiable.

If you're trying to add facts to an article that can only be sourced from SPLC, that should be your first clue there may be a problem. If SPLC uses reliable sources that are BLP policy-compliant, those should be the sources that appear in our articles. Belchfire-TALK 18:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I've read the policy you point to. Strident assertions of yours cannot make that policy apply to the SPLC when we can all see that the SPLC is widely cited and highly respected in its field. Your argument is not going anywhere. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion was over before it even started - my argument had already defeated your hagiographic nonsense before we even got here, and you have offered nothing to counter it. Show us the editorial oversight, if you can, and you will still have the obvious conflict of interest to contend with. You can spout about how SPLC is "highly respected" all day long, but you haven't advanced it a single step towards meeting the requirements of policy. Belchfire-TALK 18:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hollow bluster is all I see from you—nothing to prove your point that the Intelligence Report is not a widely cited or highly respected journal. Instead of showing proof, you demand it of me. I have linked to more than 100 scholarly citations to the journal; you have shown nothing. Here's a little extra for your consideration: Richard Seltzer, PhD, Professor of Political Science at Howard University, writes, "The best source for hate crimes is the Intelligence Report put out by the Southern Poverty Law Center." Don't take my word for it, take the word of scholars. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are you having trouble understanding this? "Widely cited" and "highly respected" mean nothing, because those things do not address the deficiencies. It doesn't matter what some random PhD thinks, he doesn't set Wikipedia policy. This isn't "hollow bluster"; it's on-point, which is a lot more than I can say for your non-argument. Belchfire-TALK 21:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Scholars are our highest court in terms of reliable sources. By our own policy and in actual practice, we care deeply what "some random PhD thinks", especially when it is more than 100 of these people, every one a topic expert. When you bring scholarly evidence pointing to the unreliability of Intelligence Report you will have a foundation for your argument. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Francisco Javier García (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Page tampered with — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.96.180 (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I've rolled back all of the edits done today, and slapped a 1 day semi-protection on it; we'll see if that stops the problem or if an extension is needed. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The section "Attacks on Amritanandamayi" in Mata Amritanandamayi seems to be violating BLP guidelines. It states the theory that of Amritanandamayi beat to death a man who recently tried to attack her. It is my understanding that, in BLP, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." However, this theory has a cited source--a group of seven called a press conference to publicly announce it. The theory is entirely upon a statement that came from an unnamed source in one newspaper that the attacker had injury marks on his body when he was brought to the jail. The theory stands in the face of the Crime Report, publicly recorded statements of the attacker's brother, who said the attacker was fine when he saw him a couple days after the attack in the jail, and video footage shown on many news shows that clearly shows the attacker in police custody without a scratch on him. I request someone more knowledgeable about BLP guidelines to look at the section.--LanceMurdock999 (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. The article doesn't say that Amritanandamayi beat Mann up, only that he was beaten up. It's stated passively without saying who did the beating. And the cited source says that "ashram inmates" attacked Mann.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Radamel Falcao García (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Career stats table has been replaced by text: "Falcao is a cool player".

Fixed hopefully. --Mollskman (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Information about Kathy Taylor living in Florida is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahkatheryn (talk • contribs) 23:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Tom Cruise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can experienced editors examine this discussion? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes please. And in case it's not blindingly obvious BLPCAT does not apply to Wikiproject banners which are not to be prevented from use. No one is suggesting the Cruise be added to any category on the article. Nor is the well know rumor alleging Cruise is gay to be treated as anything but a well known rumor as noted in reliable sources. Insomesia (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not a BLP issue. Cruise's lawsuits against those who have claimed that he was gay are enough to make it relevant to the LGBT Project, if nothing else. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Insomesia and Delicious. WP:LGBT doesn't actually have to provide any reason to express interest in an article, as the relevant guideline states "...if a WikiProject says that an article is within their scope, then you may not force them to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article," (bold in original). The WikiProject's expression of interest can not in any way be construed to be a BLP issue, much less a BLPCAT issue.--Trystan (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." He neither self-identifies as such and the subject's sexual orientation is relevant to his public life or notability. Delicious and Trystan are wrong. Projects can't impose their will against BLP. Insomnia indicates that it should be excluded at the article's talk page. Not sure what Trystan was writing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. WP:BLPCAT doesn't even apply here, and a WikiProject can't be told what they should and shouldn't tag with their banner. No WikiProject can be, which was recently discussed at WP:MED and made explicitly clear there as well. The banner is not categorizing Cruise as gay, bisexual or transgender. It is only placing him within the scope of the LGBT project -- meaning articles that may be in need of their attention. This is done for anyone with a lot of gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender content discussing them. Sometimes for people with only a little bit or just a decent amount discussing them. For example, Cher and Madonna aren't gay either, as far as we know, but they are also tagged as part of this project's scope. And before anyone says, "Oh, but Madonna has had same-sex sexual contact," I point you to the fact that, per WP:BLPCAT (the actual way it is supposed to be used), she is not categorized as lesbian or bisexual. So stop this silliness of trying to dictate what this project can tag with its banner. If Tom Cruise, with the abundance of content discussing him in a gay light, can't be tagged with this banner, then no straight person, even straight LGBT activists, can be. 217.147.94.149 (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, you appear to have misunderstood the policy that you quote. Cruise has not been added to any category or list of LGBT persons. Cruise is of interest to a particular wikiproject. It is not an attempt to label Cruise as LGBT. I can envisage cases where wikiproject tagging might be an attempt to push a certain point of view, but this is not that case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It seems to carry the same weight but obviously doesn't. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This was discussed at length at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people, and the agreement was that any project can tag any page they want. WikiProject LGBT studies usually does a good job of using the |explanation= parameter in these situations, for which they should be commended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not a comment on the merits of the Cruise issue. A project cannot add a tag. An editor who is a member of a project adds a tag. There's nothing that immunizes that addition, and it can be removed. Assuming there's no policy violation, the validity of the tag would be determined by consensus. Also, I disagree with your interpretation as to the "agreement" reached by the RFC.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• I have added Wikiproject Scientology to Talk:Yolanda Pecoraro. The issue we're discussing might be clarified via the comparison between these two instances. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

  In what way? The comparison I would draw is whether Trey Parker, Matt Stone, and everyone else in Category:Critics of Scientology should be banned from the scope of WikiProject Scientology on the basis that someone might misunderstand it to mean they themselves are Scientologists, a conclusion that is incorrect and that they would surely object to.--Trystan (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Nomoskedasticity, do you actually think Pecoraro is of interest to that wikiproject or are you merely trying to make a point? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Reliable sources say she's a life-long member -- and she's been linked with another person who is a very highly prominent member. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
      • That wasn't what I asked. Regardless, if you are using the Scientology project tag as a way to label people as Scientologists in an effort to sidestep WP:BLPCAT, you are likely to find yourself being subject to the remedies outlined in WP:ARBSCI. Have you been warned about editing Scientology-related articles? I was warned after a single edit to the BLP of someone who is apparently not even a Scientologist (which is why I do not edit any Scientology-related articles, even talk pages). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Having added the Wikiproject banner, I am aware of arb restrictions regarding Scientology-related articles (though as you might expect I was aware previously). Other editors who might get involved in the Pecoraro article will now be aware as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, this seems to be a double-standard. It's acceptable for the LGBT Project add a project banner to Cruise's article since they are interested in the subject and there are some unsubstantiated claims that he may be gay as a way to avoid WP:BLPCAT, but the Scientology project isn't on similar grounds. Either they are both to be excluded or both should be included. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Can someone point to the relevant policy which states that Wikiproject banners are excluded from WP:BLP policy in general? Unless such policy exists, what WP:BLPCAT says is of no consequence, per "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". 'Unsubstantiated claims' are contentious by definition, and hogwash about such 'unsubstantiated claims' being 'of interest' to members of a Wikiproject is entirely beside the point, regardless of the particular Wikiproject involved. And note that WP:BLP policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia - so claiming that a banner "isn't part of the article" would be no defence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

From what I gather, the assertion that there have been rumors about Cruise's sexuality is not an unsubstantiated claim. No comment (at this stage) on the utility of the banner -- but let's make sure we know what we're referring to. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

From what I gather, the claim has been made by his estranged wife (or her legal and publicity team) and may be nothing more than attempt to get a better deal in the divorce settlements. Rumours are unsubstantiated claims. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That's fine -- and I agree with the notion that we shouldn't propagate rumors. I was only commenting on the nature of the claim. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The claim made in the project banner is, "Cruise has, on a few separate occasions, taken successful legal action against people who have claimed he is homosexual." This is a summary of the first paragraph of Tom_Cruise#Litigation, where the material appears to be well-sourced. If that material is being challenged as a BLP violation, it would be much clearer if the discussion focused on its removal from the article, rather than the project banner.--Trystan (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask why the fact that Cruise has taken successful legal action against people who have claimed he is homosexual makes him of such interest to members of Wikiproject LGBT that they feel obliged to place a banner on the talk page? Per Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies, and in particular "What this Wikiproject is not... This project does not extend beyond the cultural, political and historical manifestation of LGBT and intersex identities, attractions, and relationships, and related societal reactions", there seems to be no connection whatsoever between the stated aims of the project and the Tom Cruise article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Walter Gorlitz, I think wikiproject tags may be added to any article where there is a reasonable case to be made that the article is related or of interest to that wikiproject. If the LGBT project tag had been added in what appeared to be an attempt to label Cruise as gay or bisexual, I would find that to be a violation of BLP. The simple facts of the matter are that Cruise has filed lawsuits against multiple people who have made public statements that he is gay. That seems like it is directly relevant to the LGBT project, for multiple reasons. While BLPCAT does not apply to project tags, the BLP policy as a whole must not be ignored. Nomoskedasticity's action is clearly pointy and likely a violation of WP:ARBSCI, but isn't clearly a BLP violation taken by itself. I'm not sure where you perceive a double-standard. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

@Andy: Homosexuality as defamation is a topic with a fair bit written about it in law and social science journals, with several of those articles discussing Cruise's lawsuits specifically as the most famous example of case law in this area. The Iiterature discusses issues such as how the law and society view homosexuality as well as implications of such laws and lawsuits for LGBT persons. That it is an issue of interest to editors interested in the cultural and political manifestation of LGBT identities seems self-evident to me.--Trystan (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Trystan is right. Suing someone because you think being called gay is defamatory is an important area of interest for academics interested in Gay studies.

Furthermore, WikiProject cats aren't in the mainspace and they aren't the regular, mainspace-oriented cats. Very few non-editor readers see them (on Tom Cruise, article hits outnumbered talk page hits 1,400 to one in August) and you can't get to the cats from anywhere in the mainspace cat tree. We're not talking about putting "Cat:Gay men" in front of readers. We're talking about putting "Cat:WikiProject LGBT articles with comments" in front of editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm having some issues on the Larry Pickering article, and it could do with some more eyes. Pickering has been involved in pushing the AWU scandal which the Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has been caught up in. The recent changes seem to be a response, and have been very much POV, although the first problem is that the sources don't fully support some very negative claims being added into the article - they provide partial support, but not enough. Some mention of his involvement will make sense, but it will need more care when writing it, and the problems with the claims being added (which I've tried to explain on the talk page there) seem to me to be a concern. - Bilby (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That material has been returned [25]. I'm on 3R, so I'll revert because of BLP concerns if need be, but a second opinion would be helpful. Other than the clear POV issues, the main problems are claiming that Pickering's work is phonographic, when that isn't in the reference, claiming that he is currently being pursued over a scam, when that is also not supported by the source, and claiming that recent emails by Pickering contained defamation, which isn't mentioned in the source. Much of the other material being added isn't fully supported by the sources, but those three claims are the ones that I thought were most problematic. - Bilby (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup (which however leaves the article mostly gutted) and warned the other editor re 3RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I also had to gut it - the previous version wasn't much good either, but that one suffered from a lack of sources, rather than the current issue. - Bilby (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

ITYM 'pornographic'? And yeah, we should be careful not to go beyond what's in the sources here. I'm not sure why anybody would need to go beyond what's in the sources; Pascoe's article is pretty savage, and I have to assume SMH's lawyers cleared it for publication. --GenericBob (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Phonographic is way cooler than pornographic - this is why automatic spell correction is so neat, as my typing is much more interesting that way. :) I agree that there is enough based on what is already out there without going beyond the sources, but to be honest my feeling is that the current notoriety of Pickering is going to make it hard to evaluate due weight. - Bilby (talk) 06:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

IIRC John Clarke had a great sketch about 'pornographic rock music' many years back. It was defined as "music that is played on a pornograph". --GenericBob (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The Sun Myung Moon article is currently a very bad and unbalanced article, by Wikipedia's normal standards. It reads like a hagiography, and I get the impression it has been very carefully maintained by Moon's supporters to read that way.

We can, and should, do better than this. Now that Moon is dead, WP:BLP no longer applies, and a more critical approach should be possible, even in the teeth of promotional editor pushback. I've started a conversation on Talk:Sun Myung Moon to try to improve this, with the aim of producing a balanced and nuanced article, avoiding the two perils of biography, of producing either a panegyric or a hatchet job. -- The Anome (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

the page contains a very offensive word in the first sentence of the first paragraph. You'll know it when you see it. I don't feel comfortable writing it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.154.1 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This appears to have been corrected by this edit: [26]. JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I have had a problem getting another editor to understand the potential legal implications of describing the film Zinda as a remake of Oldboy. I brought the issue to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Editor Bettty Logan responded to my request for help and tried to explain to the other editor what the problem is, but she/he has again returned to re-add the problematic text. It seems that she/he does not understand the problem. Betty Logan also suggested that I mention the matter here, so I'm doing that now. I would appreciate it if someone else would intervene to help settle the matter. Thanks. 99.192.52.250 (talk) 05:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Joan Juliet Buck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Looks some serious BLP concerns here with some edit-warring going on, including editors arriving with no previous involvement in the article and new IPs who haven't edited anything else. Note the edit summary "BLP issues, removal of material, coatrack, non-netural editing." The coat-racking referred to seems to be about the Assads. I think the latest edit needs reverting but would like a 2nd opinion. Dougweller (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Didn't I work on this dispute at DRN? Bbb23 knows a bit about it. Electric Catfish 11:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

If I recall, I was profoundly annoyed with the dispute at DRN because no one was paying any attention to the content issues. Instead, everyone was focusing on editor conduct, and I said as much - more than once.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Made multiple claims in singles sentence into multiple sentences, and used "said" as preferable to possibly non-neutral implications of other words. Still a bit of COATRACK, alas. Collect (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The problems with the article are in the section entitled "Asma al-Assad Controversy" (the "c" shouldn't be capitalized). Every time a section title has the word "controversy" in it there's generally something wrong with it. The second paragraph of the section has the worst parts. Here's the entire paragraph (w/o refs and links):

Buck wrote a critical article about the assignment in Newsweek saying she had been been "duped" by the Assads and that she had not wanted to write the story which, among other things, "destroyed her livelihood." Buck's follow-up generated controversy. In Maclean's, Barbara Amiel said that at the time Buck wrote her original article, she was more politically active then she presented herself in this article and that Syria was already on the U.S. State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism. Homa Khaleeli in the The Guardian said that the follow-up was almost as disastrous as the initial interview and did not describe how the Assads "duped" her. Michael Totten, a winner of The Week magazine's "Blogger of The Year" award for his Middle East dispatches, said in World Affairs that although Assad was not yet a war criminal when Buck wrote her piece, it was well known that he was a totalitarian dictator whose state sponsored radical Islamist terrorist organizations. Buck has since been vocal on Twitter about developments in Syria.

Here's a list of the problems:

1. The word "critical" in the first sentence is a gloss and unnecessary - just report what she wrote.
2. The sentence "Buck's follow-up" should be removed - again, just report what happened, not add editorial commentary.
3. I don't know what the phrase "she was more politically active than she presented herself" means. It is material added by, I believe, an IP. I would remove it as unintelligible and, to the extent I understand it, I don't believe it is supported by the source.
4. The phrase "almost as disastrous as the initial interview" is a direct cut and paste from the Guardian ([27]). I'm not crazy about these Guardian aritcles anyway as they are essentially blog op-ed pieces.
5. The part about Totten is absurd. The first part of the sentence plays up his credentials, and the second part of the sentence is simply unsupported by the piece he wrote, even if you go to the Gladstone Institute where the entire piece appears (the World Affairs part is an excerpt). The piece is about Syria and Lebanon. It never mentions Buck. It never mentions Asma al-Assad. The writing is inflammatory. It's about as coatracky as it can be. And even if we were going to cite the piece in another article, the words used by whomever in the Buck article do not fairly represent the piece at all.

With all that in mind, the paragraph should be changed/trimmed to:

Buck later wrote an article about the assignment in Newsweek saying she had been been "duped" by the Assads and she had not wanted to write the story which, among other things, "destroyed her livelihood." In Maclean's, Barbara Amiel said at the time Buck wrote her original article, Syria was already on the U.S. State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism. Buck has since been vocal on Twitter about developments in Syria.

That's close to what it was before the changes, but not exactly the way it was. I'd also remove the word "Controversy" from the section header. We could just leave it "Asma al-Assad" or call it "Asma al-Assad articles". Finally, I could see a little more criticism of Buck being added to the second paragraph of it were worded carefully so it doesn't come across as strident.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Manbumper tells me "Please check Aichikawa and Bbb23 edits on this page, several of us think that she is Joan Buck." Lol. I'd like to know why Manbumper suddenly appeared at this article. Dougweller (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• This article continues to be troublesome. Before it was coming from editors who appeared to want to add unwarranted negative material; now, it's coming from editors (actually just one, I think) who insists on adding positive material that isn't noteworthy. More moderate eyes would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Ted Frank article is an inaccurate and out of date mess for reasons I discuss in detail on the talk page. (In particular, a positive Wall Street portrayal is mined for negative quotes without including any of the positive information in the article.) I requested specific edits, and an editor arbitrarily denied because the request wasn't specific without addressing any of the specific edits. I'd fix it myself, but then I'd get accused of a conflict of interest, the edits would be reverted, and a tag would be stuck on the page, making it a worse mess. Can someone please address? If Wikipedia isn't going to ensure that biographies of living people are kept up to date and accurate, they shouldn't have them. Theodore H. Frank (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

At a first glance, I don't see any BLP violations. It's a GA and has 74 citations, by the way. Electric Catfish 19:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Who cares if the editor is *really* Ted Frank? Are the edits being proposed worthy of inclusion? If they are, they should be added. If there are *any* BLP concerns, they should be addressed. (By the way there is no such thing as a 'BLP violation', just matters of concern.) -- Avanu (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind being more specific on what issues you think there are with the article? Thanks, Electric Catfish 19:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC).

If you look at the article talk page, Frank posted a bulleted list of "issues". It's a full-time job for anyone who wants it. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that the GA review didn't check for accuracy or SYN or NOR and doesn't address the fact that the article is outdated, I fail to see the relevance of GA status on my complaint that the article is inaccurate and outdated. That something this sloppy has GA status reflects poorly on GA. In response to Avanu's question, the thirty or so Wikipedia editors who drove me away from the site by accusing evry single edit I made of COI violations plainly care, so I'm not giving them a chance to complain that I edited my own article. The article need more than a glance; it's superficially nicely laid out to get GA status, but poorly written. Theodore H. Frank (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ted. How in the world is an article promoted to GA status with those issues? I've recently started reviewing DYK hooks and I would decline a hook that came from an article that had that many issues. It reflects very poorly on GA's. Electric Catfish 12:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

If someone believes the article does not merit the good article label, they can follow the procedures in WP:GAR. Not really an issue for BLPN.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

There has been an editing dispute at Zinda (film) alleging plagiarism by the filmmakers, between a registered editor and an IP. The IP felt the accusation was not substatiated by the sources and brought the issue to the Film project for a third opinion. I looked it over and felt the sources did not justify the claim, but the registered editor has re-added the content [28]. There is a discussion at Talk:Zinda_(film)#Falsified_implied_legal_implications_of_wikipedia. In truth this is way out of my comfort zone as a third opinion, and I'm not even sure if this is the right place to raise the issue, but I would be grateful if someone who is more adept at handling slander/libel issues could take over as the "third man" in this, since I don't want to legally jeopardise Wikipedia but I don't want to overreact against a legitimate claim either. Betty Logan (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see your new section when I added mine below. Thanks for taking this up here as well. 99.192.52.250 (talk) 05:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the issue has been satisfactorily settled now. Thanks again for your help, Betty. 99.192.76.42 (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC) (=99.192.52.250)

J. G. Sandom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone is repeatedly adding sections called "Cornucopia Press and Digital IN" and "Political publicism" to this stub. Data in both of these sections are not merely undocumented; they're libelous to J.G. Sandom, the individual characterized in this stub.

Please make an effort to block such attempts in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.49.239 (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Libel is a big word, but the material that has now been removed was unsourced and controversial. Therefore, it doesn't belong in the article. Future "blocking" is complicated - see WP:PROTECT.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know Swedish or their way around Swedish Wikipedia? someone there has moved the Bradley Manning article to "Breanna Manning" based on a sketchy "news source" having a claim that someone forwarded them e-mails in which Bradley has supposedly said that he wants to go by "Breanna" and it should be brought to someones attention there, but i am clueless. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. It seems to have been moved back again (at least I can't see the article at Breanna Manning), and there's nothing on his lawyer's website. [29] That would be the place I'd expect to see an announcement if he decides he wants to be known as a woman. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Collymore

I'm new to all this, so don't really know where to start. Lots of references to political and racial issues regarding the subject and his family have been added incrementally to the point that it's impossible to tell what's true and what isn't. Many of the sources cited simply don't reflect what's in the article, and some things that are patently nonsense, such as "agitating the suppression of waffle in the UK", have slipped through the net.

Like I said, I really don't know where to start, but the entire article could do with revamping and locking. It seems that there's some sort of campaign against the subject in question. 86.4.242.105 (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Jeez, good catch. I have removed some of the most egregious portions, and will try to keep an eye on it. a13ean (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have time to sort all this out, but the first few tags or untags regarding someone's Jewish descent appeared to be unsourced. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've freed up, I'll deal. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The Alex Jones Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article has two large unsourced guest lists. Without sources this looks like a big BLP violation. Note that Alex Jones' own article says "Mainstream sources have described Jones as a conservative and as a right-wing conspiracy theorist. Jones sees himself as a libertarian, and rejects being described as a right-winger." and that Jones believes the US government was behind 9/11. Dougweller (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

A blog from the Miami herald is being used on this artile for some very contentious statements regarding Jim Naugle. This is what is in the article "In a press release and in public rallies they tied his official public statements to violent anti-gay incidents" as well as "Gay activist Niedwiecki qualifies for Oakland Park Commission race". Miami Herald. "Niedwiecki may be best known for his vocal opposition to the divisive comments made by Fort Lauderdale ’s mayor, Jim Naugle. As part of Fight OUT Loud, Niedwiecki was one of the main organizers of the unity rally protesting the hateful comments made by Mayor Naugle, and he worked tirelessly behind the scenes with the Broward County Commission to have Naugle stripped of his position on the Tourism Development Council." which is sourced to[30] this MH blogger. Facts, not fiction (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP and WP:RS and see how they regard blogs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Although blog is technically a four-letter word, his blog happens to reprint articles that are published in the newspaper. Hence the idea that not all blogs are automatically assumed to be unreliable. Insomesia (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Which is why the stricter requirements of WP:BLP come into play. I d0 not see intrinsically that barring sexual activity from public restrooms is that anti-gay but YMMV. Collect (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that was the issue, and non-gay men also have public sex, just saying ... . I think the issue was how the comments were perceived as homophobic and then repeated across all local outlets in a mid-sized city as you would expect pronouncements from the mayor would. None of this however is being challenged as true, by the way, just as needing stronger sources which on his bio article already seem to exist. Insomesia (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that someone has just created Category:Monorchistic people. (Monorchism is the "state of having only one testicle within the scrotum".) Does anyone think this is a good thing? Zagalejo^^^ 04:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't see where this category would ever be a useful category. Except for maybe A certain Nazi leader. --Jayron32 04:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

In which case, we could have categories for every line of the song, for the sake of completeness... Microorchistic, Anorchistic, etc. -- The Anome (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated the category for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 6. Pichpich (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Now empty - as Bruce Lee was categorized sans sourcing. Collect (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I have initiated an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Misuse of primary sources, comment there welcome. -- PBS (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not his original name. the person shown on the website changed his name by deed poll to be more appealing to asian investors, and jewish investors. The Kia element was for the asians the Silverbrook was for the Jewish community. His original surname was Tilbrook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeznlez (talk • contribs) 11:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources to establish, 1) that it is true; and 2) that it is important? Sounds pretty darned speculative to me. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Jeznlez has vandalised BLP of Kia Silverbrook, including posting date of death=2013, so I would take other related claims with a huge amount of salt. Ipsign (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ms Rinehart is a contentious individual and very outspoken in Australian political life. It does seem to me, however, that some of the edits at both article and the talk page, particularly this, are crossing a line for a BLP. Anyone want to take a look? hamiltonstone (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've done some trimming of wanton talk page comments, and have watchlisted the article itself. I encourage others to do the same. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll continue to monitor too.hamiltonstone (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

We've had some problems at Moni Aizik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) before.[31]. After seeing a new editor there today I removed some dubious unsourced or badly sourced material. That hasn't been replaced, but material continually added by an account with the subjec'ts name[32] (and by at least one SPA) has been added again.[33] Some of the new sources seem dubious.

The lead no longer reflects the problems Aizik has had because of his claims of military service[34] although that section is untouched. Not new but a problem is the fact that some of the external links are to documents Aizik seems to have uploaded himself, eg photocopies of emails, which surely don't belong in the article.[35]

I'll notify the new editor. Dougweller (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi! The work over this article only begun. These photocopies and e-mails will be removed soon since they don't belong there at all, and more links from different reliable sites will be added later. I am happy if you check the article from time to time in order to see that it is neutral, informative and well-sourced. Thank you. Romayan (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I marked this page for deletion since it is used for libeling and deffamation. I'd be glad if it is checked by other editors. Romayan (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have declined Romayan's request for deletion under WP:G10; the previous version of the page prior to his tag contained nothing libellous or defamatory. The sanctions by the ASA are reliably sourced, and hence do not violate WP:BLP. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – The sockpuppet accounts have been blocked indefinitely by Bbb23. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Anne Block is a brand new article, very well referenced, very professionally written, lots of sources (all by a brand new editor), but it reads like a hit piece on the person. Experienced eyes would be helpful. First Light (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It failed at AfD about a week ago -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne K. Block -- so I have tagged it for speedy deletion as a repost. And, yes, I agree, it reads like a hit piece with serious WP:BLP issues. Ubelowme _U ^Me 02:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I had a feeling there would be someone who might recognize it. And a professional hit piece, at that. First Light (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Someone who claims to be the subject has just pressed the WP:LAWSUIT button on the article's talk page, although she then blanked the page. I think this now needs administrative oversight and I will try to attract it. Ubelowme _U ^Me 03:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The legal threat has been discussed at WP:ANI#Anne Block/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne K. Block; now the author of the first version has requested undeletion at WP:REFUND#Anne K. Block and I have refused and pointed them to DRV. JohnCD (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of SALTing that, at least for now. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

The two accounts creating and working on the articles have been indeffed for sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

i just wanted know about paul'dog marther and linda's palaminos. probably got wrong site, sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.221.226 (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This page is for people to report problems with the content of Wikipedia's biographical articles. You can ask questions like yours at Wikipedia:Reference desk. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Jesper Fast is a professional ice-hockey winger for the New York Rangers. He used to go by the name Jesper Fasth but he has since dropped the "h" from his last name.

Wikipedia Page- Jesper Fasth

New York Rangers Official Profile Page for Jesper Fast: http://rangers.nhl.com/club/player.htm?id=8475855 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.3.139.103 (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Would need source if the name was changed legally - added "now using" for the last name, but the original name stays at the start. Collect (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Noting that all the reliable sources use "Fasth." Collect (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

A few more pairs of eyes on Stephen Snoddy would be good; I've just removed some cited, but unnecessary, info per BLP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Teesta Setalvad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) attracts a lot of pov editing. I was trying to fix the section iwth criticisms (which is still a bit of a mess as I can't sort out what happened exactly after 2009) and removed a case brought last year by an aide as this hasn't yet been resolved and I see no reason why it should be in the article. It's been replaced because it's still in court. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

If this is supposed to be an encyclopedia why does virtually every biography of a recent person contain such trivia as their dating history and every illegitimate child they have, their person tastes in sports, food, and political/charity causes. It's nothing more than bulking up articles on junkfood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.158.16 (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedias do that. If you take the view that major life events such as the birth of a child, and publicly reported significant activity such as support of a particular political cause, are not suitable for inclusion in a biographical article, then what do you consider is suitable for inclusion?

There are, however, frequent problems with recentism and with sourcing based on tabloid-type material. If you have specific articles in mind where material is included that is clearly not WP:DUE WEIGHT, then please let us know. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not encyclopedic what football team they like, whether they like Hawaiian pizza or some other toppings, the name and breed of their pets. Want specifics just peruse any musician under the age of 25 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.158.16 (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I would mostly agree about the pizza toppings - although the diet of Elvis Presley is an appropriate encyclopedic part of his biography. With football teams it is a little more uncertain. If it's appropriate to mention Idi Amin's enthusiasm for a certain football club, why is it not appropriate to mention a similar enthusiasm on the part of some other notable person? Just because they're not dead yet? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Are you someone from a discussion above pretending to be someone different than yourself? And do you have a link to any of these articles you claim are bulking up on junkfood? Why would you be against listing what political/charity causes they support? Dream Focus 00:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Judging from the IP's edit history, it has to do with old relationship details on Jeffrey Dean Morgan's article, as they had tagged the Personal Life section as "encyclopedic"; I condensed and reduced some of the info about an old relationship, copy-edited the rest of the section, and removed the tag. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Editing not from a neutral point of view.

As the subject of this article, I believe that Teacross is not editing this article from a neutral point of view.

Teacross, an account that appears to have been created for the purpose of editing this article, refers to a "number of controversies", but in fact only identifies one, about the joint mailing, which is factually correct but being given undue prominence, not being highlighted in other coverage of the election by a range of major news sources.

The "many members were unhappy" paragraph uses as a source a Tweet from one former party member who left some time before the election. And the reference to the Lib Dems wholly gratuitous.

On the final claimed "controversy" - The turnout is a rise of 5 per cent on the same election two years before, and the word "foul play" are thrown in gratuitously.

I would appreciate assistance as I feel that any edit I make is likely to be immediately reversed by Teacross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.35.232.172 (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The edits by Teacross violated more than one policy at Wikipedia and have been removed. I have also warned Teacross on their talk page. The edits were unreliably sourced, constituted copyright infringement, violated BLP policy, and were unencyclopedic. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of rumours about Abdelaziz Bouteflika, president of Algeria that are not sourced/verifiable. The table of the article said his office term ended today with no source. So I changed to 2014 (I do not have the accurate date). Could someone watch the article, fix the end term in the table and optionaly have a closer look at the article. Thanks. --Youssef (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I added the "Nazism and the Holocaust" subsection to the "Controversial Views" section of Fetzer's bio. A more experienced editor deleted it and has the support of two other editors. I disagree for reasons stated on the Talk page (link below). I request the input of others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_H._Fetzer#Nazism_and_the_Holocaust_and_citations

Lenbrazil (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Aaron Lazar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This actor has not agreed to or confirmed the material found here. This could cause legal and contractual issues regarding his career. PLEASE take it down immediately. I am a representative of Mr. Lazar and he has asked me numerous times to try and fix the unsanctioned information on this site. This wiki post should contain the bare minimum information about Mr. Lazar including: Name, Career History.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleme1223 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear why the material you are attempting to delete is problematic in any way. Can you be more specific regarding what the problem is? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This biography presents its subject in a misleading way, but when a correction is made, the editor Aboutmovies reverts the article back to the misleading version.

The issue is the use of the word "Journalist" to describe the subject. While it's common for journalists to leave their profession and become publicists or media relations persons for government agencies, it's misleading to wikipedia readers for them to be referred to as a "journalist" after having done so. For example, see the online job search page http://www.simplyhired.com, which clearly distinguishes "In-House Writer" from "Journalist." In the wikipedia entry for Jay Carney, Mr. Carney is referred to as having previously been a journalist but currently as White House Press Secretary. This is consistent with wikipedia's treatment of other people working in press relations on behalf of political entities.

To my knowledge, there is no other example of a government public relations person being presented as a current "journalist."

Wikipedia should be a reliable source of objective information, not a venue for counter-factual spin. I would like the wikipedia community to address the meaning of "Journalism" and whether a person paid by the government can qualify. Peezy1001 (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Dennis M. Lynch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears to be the subject of edit warring. Longer version contains unsourced and non-neutral content; blanked version leaves little to explain notability. Probably needs rewrite with inline sources, and perhaps page protection to facilitate copyedits by neutral parties. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The following IP has assumed a long-term ownership that transcends removal of vandalism, and is promotional in nature. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 23:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

69.121.235.228 (talk · contribs)