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

A user keeps inserting a claim that Clawson "suggested that the US government should engineer a false flag event to gain popular support to facilitate a war with Iran." I have pointed out on the talk page that this is a misrepresentation of Clawson's actual statements, but, despite two requests, the IP user has not taken the opportunity to discuss the edit. The user's source is antiwar.com, which is not a WP:RS. GabrielF (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing it with the IP? I don't see anything on the talk page? If they discuss with you and there is no resolution and you could try 3rd opinion or WP:RSN. The source looks weak to me but that's a discussion for another noticeboard. It also seems like undue weight since the article is less than a paragraph long. But those are just my opinions. Try to dialogue with the IP. If they refuse to talk and just edit war, then it becomes a behavioral issue for WP:DRN maybe. I hope that's helpful. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Patrick Clawson. GabrielF (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I found this article with two proposed deletion templates on it saying that Mr Bickhart doesn't want particular content in the article. That's not a reason to delete the article, as he appears to easily pass notability guidelines, but could someone take a look at the article and check for WP:BLP-compliance? It does, at first glance, look rather unbalanced, but I don't have the time to trawl through sources at the moment. (And I'd rather not get drawn into the cesspit of domestic US politics) Phil Bridger (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm one could argue that the article is, on the whole, on the negative side and that's rarely a good thing. But what coverage there is is reliable, the man had a public position, and did things that made him public. The salary bit is unsavory, but that's probably because it was perceived as unsavory. I wouldn't object to the numbers being scrapped, maybe, or some other tweaks made, but if one accepts half a million dollars in such a public position, well, I'm sure he had worse exposure than this mention in Wikipedia. We don't get paid a dime to produce verified and neutral information about others in our little project. Interesting case, Phil, and an invitation for more input. Collect, are you inclined to comment? Drmies (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Incorrect information removed.

Former Green Bay Packers Backup QB. The last line of his bio is untrue and, in fact, libelous. Also, Wikipedia's notice about how to report libelous material misspells libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.214.145 (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the line in question. GabrielF (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I know nothing about Bulgarian politics. Sergei Stanishev is a Bulgarian politician whose article is chock-a-block with unsourced speculation about his ethnicity and heritage, most of which is contributions by Hurryurgeee. I think it all needs to be deleted back to a version last April before Hurryurgeee and Ceco31 started inserting "possible" origins and other theories. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the area could take a look. Bielle (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I have done some work on the article to try and get rid of the most blatant speculation and WP:OR. It needs other eyes as the two editors noted above are currently editing the article. I am about to leave notifications of this matter on their talk pages. There are paragraphs that include apparent quotations that show no sources. Bielle (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Ceco31 has re-organized the article, which is, I think a positive step; however, the speculation about his Jewish heritage is still in the text. Ceco31 claims it is all sourced, but I can find nothing in the Russian sources to support the claim; I can't read the Bulgarian. The wording is typical of OR synthesis. I also question the significance of the long paragraphs about where his parents were born and the ethnic make-up of the village where Stanishev was born; that reads like a political point is being made, but I don't know enough about the Balkans to comment further. Please note that Stanishev was a former Prime Minister of Bulgaria, so there is good reason to ensure the article is as neutral, and as accurate, as possible. Bielle (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe the current composition is correct as in articles such as Nicolas Sarkozy the family background is described. I have cited what text I quoted from websites, there the ethnicity is stated as same as I have written it, so there is no OR I think. The pages are in Bulgarian, not in Russian so you can translate them in Google dictionary for example. Yes, Stanishev was Prime Minister of Bulgaria but this does not make him without ethnicity and other type human from the rest of the people. --Ceco31 (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I also know nothing about Bulgarian politics or Bulgaria. I would ask that editors use the talk page going forward to reach consensus on what if any material should be added. Ceco31 mentioned something about "knowing what the truth is", but we need RS and not OR or speculation. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Debra Marshall'-- Fake Twitter Page and questionable movie role ==

Hey I just noticed that the external link for Debra Marshall's supposedly official twitter page is obviously a fake, for one Debra doesn't live in LA, California and secondly that page follows fake pages of other celebs.

I also question the validity of her supposed role in "Just Another Romantic Wrestling Comedy". I've personally never seen the film, However if you go to the films official website you'll noticed that her name is not listed in the full cast. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexdart3000 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a 'blow page' if I've ever seen one. Un-sourced and completely misrepresentative of even the most basic Wikipedia rules. If I was Rza I would be embarrassed by this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.134.146 (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Bill Kerby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I was born in 1937, not 1940. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.165.2.254 (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The only source I can find with Mr. Kerby's birthdate is [1]. This shows the birth year as 1940. Is there a source that shows the 1937 birth year? Sperril (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that link is to a particularly reliable source. I've removed the unsourced birth date. Also, IMDB isn't a reliable source for BLPs. I've migrated that to external links. Sperril is quite right that the proper year can be inserted given a reliable source. JFHJr (㊟) 05:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The name Brad Stowell is used in the article. I tried to remove the name but my attempt was reverted. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&diff=516370578&oldid=516365033.

There are other people named Brad Stowell besides the person referenced in the article, which would be just as good a piece without the exact name of the person involved. See http://www.dogpile.com/info.dogpl/search/web?fcoid=417&fcop=topnav&fpid=2&q=%22Brad+Stowell%22+-scout+-molester&ql=

Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

What policy basis is there for suggesting that the names of people should be deleted because of the possible existence of other people with the same name? That argument is so vague it could be applied to tens of thousands of articles at WP. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Eh, bad argument or not, that entire section is completely over the top. Too much of it is praise of the investigative journalist in question, there is no need whatsoever to mention the name of the person accused, and it is entirely too long--the references do not, as far as I can tell, bear out that a half a dozen paragraphs should be devoted to this case. I hope that someone else can have a closer look at the section in question and perhaps trim it. As far as I'm concerned, the entire bit could be scrapped, referenced or not, as lending a huge amount of undue weight to a minor issue in the man's biography. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I see now that there already is a section on this BLP. Collect, your observation is brief but to the point and I agree that this seems to be the season for silly stuff, and that the article as a whole is entirely skewed. Drmies (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Broader issues aside, I'm still not clear on the justification for removing the names. They were mentioned in the various cited sources and by VanderSloot himself. How is it better to say "the camp director" instead of the person's actual name? It's an encyclopedia right? Is there a policy or guideline that you believe justifies removal of the names? Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Brad Stowell is a married guy who lives in Saint Croix Falls, Wisconsin.

http://www.facebook.com/brad.stowell.31

He is in the computer software business in Seattle,

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/brad-stowell/0/147/ab1

He is a minor league baseball player.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=stowel001bra

He is a lacrosse goalie at Alfred State.

http://www.alfredstate.edu/athletics/lacrosse

He is the owner of a company called Southern Green.

http://jacksonville.citysearch.com/profile/33241908/jacksonville_fl/southern_green.html

To my belief, he is a living person, and more than one, too. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

So what? There are 19 LinkedIn profiles listed for "John Hinkley",[2] and yet the BLP on Ronald Reagan still mentions John Hinkley by name. There must be 1000s of similar but less notable examples throughout WP. The premise of this argument does not seem to be based on any WP policy or guideline; I don't believe that there is any WP policy/GL dictating that a person can't be named in a BLP because there may exist some other person(s) with the same name. Nonetheless, the full name of the Brad Stowell in question is "Bradley Grant Stowell", so I have simply added that to the article.[3] Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Stowell is not notable by Wikipedia standards. 2. ]]WP:BLP]] states clearly:

This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.

When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

Many Wikipedia articles contains material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources.

Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. 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.

This covers some of the salient issues at hand. Stowell is notnotable, is listed for a single reason, and his name is irrelevant to the vanderSloot BLP. BLP applies to Stowell as a living person, and the policy cearly indicates it is up to yo to prove that his name is important in the vanderSloot BLP, that it is "neutral" (WP:NPOV) about him, that it relies on secondary sources (as the material is about Zuckerman's articles, the articles themselves are a primary source here for what Zuckerman wrote, and are insufficient for the claims to be made in Wikipedia's voice as a result). I trust these multiple reasons meet your cavils. BTW, your addition of the middle name is absolutely contrary to WP:BLP as it appears to rely on your "original research" to boot. Zuckerman did not appear to use the middle name. OR in order to violate BLP is not a great idea! Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Why are you so keen to bury information regarding the activities of a pedophile? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

What the hell do you mean by that sort of remark? Collect (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Why are you so keen on highlighting this information? --Mollskman (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• I note that the name of the person was re-added to the article. I believe the relevant policy is WP:BLPCRIME and (1) the name of this person, who is not well-known, cannot be included and (2) generally, information of this sort is kept out of an article until a consensus is reached because of the BLP issues. Frankly, I'm surprised that the policy is being violated and that the information remains in the article while this discussion is ongoing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME applies specifically to individuals accused of a crime but not convicted; hence it does not aplly in this case given that the individuals in question were all convicted. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: "your addition of the middle name is absolutely contrary to WP:BLP as it appears to rely on your 'original research' to boot."

It's in the public record. A simple Google search shows multiple government documents that identify Stowell by his full legal name (Bradley Grant Stowell). So in what way is that "absolutely contrary" to WP:BLP? Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

And please read WP:RS where "public records" are considered 'primary sources' The tendentious inclusion of victim names and use of a perp name who is not notable pre WP:BLP and then reverting 5 times in under 24 hours may cause problems. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Just on the WP:BLPCRIME issue, to avoid the problem there, if Stowell's name is to be included, there should be a cite to his conviction. I still agree with Drmies and others that the paragraph itself is WP:UNDUE in the VanderSloot article, but I'll withdraw my objection on the basis of WP:BLPCRIME.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Zuckerman's articles (cited anecdotally in the BLP) chronicle the convictions of all the parties, so that should be sufficient in itself, but if you still feel that other citations showing the convicitions are required, that's simple enough to address. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Whether convicted of a crime or having coached a high school football team, unless and until the individual meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, they don't belong in any articles here. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The concerns re: WP:BLP take precedence--I'm wondering why it's vital to continue to restore a non-notable's name to an article. The name of this person is now so liberally splashed across multiple discussion pages that a good case can be made for an eventual deletion of discussions and edit summaries, per WP:CBLANK. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I confess to finding the above question Why are you so keen to bury information regarding the activities of a pedophile? so wildly inappropriate that I hope it's asked in jest. I'm choosing not to delve into the unabridged history of this, and choose to hold by WP:AGF, so I'm hoping this is not driven, even in the smallest degree, by a desire to further publicize a reprehensible crime or the person who committed it. Of all the things to attempt to re-add to an article, under the guise of providing sourced content. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

1. WP’s GLs on notability (WP:BIO) apply to whether or not a person is notable enough to qualify as the primary subject of a BLP article. It does not apply to the nobility of secondary people mentioned in a BLP.
2. Vague concerns do not take precedence over policy and GLs. Someone simply expressing concern is not a sufficient basis to support removal of the name. Furthermore, the suggestion to blank the discussion seems totally unwarranted and very premature. The discussion should be resolved before even mentioning such drastic action.
3. The question about the editor's insistence on whitewashing the name from the article seems no less reasonable than the statement that preceded it asking why the other editors was insistent on including the name. But regardless, these tsk-tsk judgments are a distraction and do not help bring us closer to a resolution. Let's keep the discussion focused on the editorial issue at hand and on policy and GLs.

WP:BLPCRIME does not apply, and the argument about the possibility of name confusion is baseless (absurd IMO) and easily addressed by including the individual's full given name, which has been provided by WP:RS.

I still see no legitimate arguments, based on policies and GLs, that would preclude inclusion of the information. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll be happy to allow for more administrative interpretation as to whether the points I raised strayed from relevance. As well, these are not 'vague concerns', but address basic Wikipedia policies re WP:BLP; we are wise to err in favor of respect of privacy, rather than the converse. Similar conversations play out regularly regarding teachers who are found guilty of inappropriate sexual relationships with students, so often folded into high school articles, and if I'm not mistaken the standard precedent is not to include the names of individuals. I see a host of legitimate reasons for concern, and mention the eventual deletion of discussions and edit summaries, per WP:CBLANK, not as an imminent action which would truncate current discussion. That, too, can be decided upon by a neutral administrator. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That ducked my counterargument. WP:BLPCRIME does not apply; WP:NOTABILITY does not apply; so what part WP:BLP pertains to this specific content issue? The arguments in this discussion should be getting more specific, but instead they are becoming more vague --i.e. merely saying things like "WP:BLP", "wise", "privacy" and "legitimate reasons" as though that's a sufficient justification. I see nothing in WP:BLP that would preclude inclusion of Stowell's name. Will the argument become even vaguer next time, citing something like WP:COMMONSENSE for example, or is someone going to eventually put some meat on the bone and specify some applicable policies/GLs? Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, one opts to see both meat and bone where one wishes to. Per Bbb23's proposal [4], which encourages placing the entire section in perspective, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:BLPNAME: Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. This appears to be a very peripheral figure in the biography of the subject--and yes, actually, commonsense would seem to be a workable description for that conclusion. And yes, persisting in reverting to a controversial edit, even weeks after other editors have raised objections, and without having reached a consensus to do so, is contentious. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Yet another new tack? Will you be running down the list of every WP policy and GL until you find one that might stick? WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies to articles, not individuals named in articles. It also defers to WP:BLP for details, which takes us back to WP:BLPCRIME which is not applicable. Neither is WP:BLPNAME, which prefaces with "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed...". Stowell's name was widely disseminated and it wasn't concealed. It was mentioned in several sources directly in connection with Vandersloot and the controversy regarding his media campaign against Zuckerman and the Post Register; for example [5][6][7] (Note that the first source, from Harvard, received a Mirror Award for journalistic excellence and the PBS episode was nominated for an Emmy for best documentary -- impeccable sources in other words). Furthermore, Vandersloot himself even disseminated the name in two separate statements that he published (which are at the crux of the section in question) attacking the investigative series and its author Zuckerman,[8][9] which further underscores why the detail is relevant. So my reply still stands; there's no meat on this bone. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

In addition, I haven't persisted "in reverting to a controversial edit, even weeks after other editors have raised objections, and without having reached a consensus to do so", and suggesting that I did merely distracts from the editorial issue at hand. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, yeah, per the discussion of September 13 [10], several editors took issue with this, and there doesn't appear to have been a consensus reached, though the point that there might be a WP:BLP concern and thus a rationale for removing the name was viewed by you as 'contentious'. I'm not running down any lists, nor looking for new tacks--you've an ability to see yourself as both correct and besieged, and don't require my presence to play. As a newcomer to this particular situation, I think your long term engagement at this article is problematic for any number of reasons--indeed, others have been involved for a long time, as well, and a light ought to have been shone on this weeks ago. The edit history for the article and its talk page are numbingly contentious, and reflect something very much like--and I'm sure you'll find a reason to disagree with this characterization--WP:OWNERSHIP. You're welcome to stay with the meat and bone metaphor. I'm glad this has popped up at several noticeboards and talk pages. Let the admins make of this what they will. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

So now that your policy/GL argument has been laid bare, you're abandoning that tack to throw more spaghetti at the wall hoping something might stick -- i.e, you're not even arguing about the Stowell issue anymore but rather going with the WP:OWN strategy and digging up a stale Talk page thread to justify pointing a finger at me. In the discussion to which you refer, "several editors" did not "take issue" -- two did (Collect and George Louis, who filed this BLPN), and it was the same two who have objected to pretty much everything except the inclusion of Heritage Foundation videos featuring Grover Norquist,[11] and whose actual contributions to the article's content have been negligible. They are part of a bloc of editors belonging to WP Project Conservatism, which is currently under the microscope for widespread POV violation.

The so called "issue" that these two editors vaguely raised was that claims made about VanderSloot "must be supported here by reliable sources";[12] (they in fact were and two editors, myself included, pointed this out) and that "there may be more than one individual with the same name", which is a position that lacks any basis in WP policy. The brief discussion ended with no further comment from the objecting editors, and the issue ended up here.

You do this discussion a disservice by veering away from content issues and trying to twist this into a user conduct issue, and specifically pointing the finger at me as the root of the problem. Soapboxing and finger-pointing are not helpful and just serve to heighten tensions. In the interest of resolution, I'm perfectly willing to continue discussing this specific content issue and relevant policy/GLs, even if you're not. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, finally: so, this is part of a larger agenda, an edit war between two non-neutral factions. Takes a while for folks to get to the real business at hand. Yet I'm still not clear as to the purpose of adding the name of a non-notable sex offender to the article--that was the initial point of contention here, one that was broached (see 'stale' edit history link above) nearly a month ago. Yes, I must desist with my soapboxing, finger pointing, and heightening of tension--I've left my prints all over that article and its talk page! 76.248.149.47 (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Agendas lurking everywhere. Your comments/edits are always welcome, here, on the article, its talk page, and anywhere else on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"The brief discussion ended with no further comment from the objecting editors, and the issue ended up here." Just because the "objecting editors" don't comment doesn't mean they are not following the issue closely. Bringing the discussion here was simply to draw in more editors, not the same old hacks, like me. Looks like it has been successful, too. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Grey Revell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grey Revell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Well here's an interesting one, an autobiography that's been here since early 2006. I've been chatting with the article's subject and author, who's been very obliging regarding the COI, puffery and reliable source issues, and has voluntarily removed some of the unreferenced claims. Would appreciate more eyes on this. Perhaps objective editors can find reliable sources to support notability. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I've posted at talk. I've tried to steer conversations there so that others can readily find conversations regarding edits to the article. There's been no discussion there yet, so I'm inclined to think that's a good forum to continue discussions about the article, and to propose edits. Discussions here should focus on article content that can't be resolved on the talk page. That aside, I agree notability is seriously in question, and I've left a comment on the talk page to that effect, with helpful links.

I also recommend WP:COIN as an alternate forum in case a conflicted editor edits disruptively or unreasonably. JFHJr (㊟) 03:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Very good. Thank you, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Now at AfD. JFHJr (㊟) 04:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

An IP account recently pasted in a large amount of text which describes (among other less sensational things) the newspaper's sponsorship of "drunken debauchery enhanced by whatever illicit drugs happened to be circulating at the time". The text names several participants, including at least one famous individual (Pamela Wallin). Perhaps someone with more experience with BLP issues could have a look at the text and determine what, if anything, needs to be removed. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the offending material and deleted the diffs. GiantSnowman 12:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

A single purpose account is moving Richard Fifer to Richard Fifer Carles. While on the surface, the rationale that people in Latin America use both last names is true; a search "Richard Fifer" Petaquilla has over 180 hits on google news, while "Richard Fifer Carles" Petaquilla has only 5 (Petaquilla is the name of Fifer's company).

The SPA that moved the article is one of several that have been dedicated to add only glowing content to the article. I am suspiscious that the name move change is to distance the person from the reported accounts that Fifer has come under indictment for various shadey dealings and then also been accused of using undue influence to have those charges delayed or dropped. I have not been able to add any of this content to the article because the legal issues are only covered in Spanish papers, and I do not read the language well enough to ensure proper coverage in the article.

So I have 2 questions: 1) is the name move proper? if not can someone move it back and let the SPA know not to keep doing so 2) is there anyone who can read Spanish willing to look into sources to find out about the legal charges and add any content that might be appropriate? -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

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

The "controversies" section is potentially libellous. By stating categorically that his umpiring decisions against Indian players are "lopsided", without any qualification or giving the other side, defames the character of one of cricket's best known former officials. It is also hardly in keeping with the professional standards to which Wikipedia aspires. The second sentence in this section is written in a most peculiar way, to add insult to injury. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.16.195 (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The 'controversies' section has now been deleted - unsurprisingly, since apart from anything else, it cited no sources whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Photo posted is irrelevant, and the link below it redirects user to a conspiracy site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.58.106 (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Reverted and semi-protected the article, as this seems to be a persistent problem coming from multiple IPs. January (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I also removed some poorly sourced material that was in a miscellaneous section. --Malerooster (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I added a better photo. --GRuban (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(Note: This is one of several BLP violations by User:Hyperionsteel, but I will make separate sections.)

In Canadian Human Rights Commission free speech controversy, we have (had, as I've removed it) a controversial quote from Dean Steacy, a CHRC investigator. This quote was cited to three op-eds and a primary-source report of a floor speech by an opponent of Steacy in the Senate. I've looked into more sources, and it universally appears only in right-wing opinion pieces. Some of these say that it originates in the transcript of a hearing, but the transcript is apparently not available (as in, it's not online and none of the users have actually seen it - not a WP:OFFLINESOURCES issue). So, the questions are:

1. Is the quote even verifiable by Wikipedia's sourcing standards, especially considering the higher standards we apply for BLP?
2. Even if it is verifiable, does the fact that the controversial material about a living person appears only in primary sources and opinion pieces require us to omit it?

(There's also the issue that we have another primary source which states that he did not say what is claimed.)

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't find any WP:RS beyond the editorial pieces. Even if the quote can be confirmed to be correct, I would think it undue to include it since there's lots of better-discussed material on this. I would also like to gently remind everyone to stop reverting back and forth, especially in an disagreement primarily with two editors. Once it's clear there's a conflict that can't be resolved on the talk page, bring it here or elsewhere. a13ean (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Steacy's quote is cited in the National Post several times. It has also been cited by Senator Doug Finley - the source is transcript of the debate in the Senate.^[1] It has also been cited in left-wing newspapers such as [13].(Hyperionsteel (talk) 06:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC))

Can you find it in something that is not an op-ed or otherwise unreliable source? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Once again, the National Post is a reliable source according to Wikipedia guidelines. This quote has also been cited in the Ottawa Citizen [14]. It has also been cited by the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies [15] (see last page, footnote 3). I will concede that I am unable to locate a transcript of the CHRC hearing at which Steacy made this comment (not to be confused the the ruling of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in 2009). I would think that the quoting of Steacy's remark by two major newspapers is sufficient for RS.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC))

So no, you cannot find it in something that is not an op-ed or an otherwise unreliable source - you cannot find it in anything that is fact-checked. Do you see why this is completely inadequate for BLP statements? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

So you are stating that citations by two major newspapers is insufficient?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 08:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC))

When the citations are non-fact-checked op-eds? Hell yeah they're insufficient. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy states that "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals but should be used with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact checking process." I have now cited two major newspapers which have quoted Steacy's comment. So yes, I believe it is sufficient.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 08:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC))

You have cited two non-fact-checked opinion pieces. This refusal to acknowledge policy when it doesn't support your edits is very frustrating, because it means there is no way of compromising with you and we must simply revert you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• National Post is an RS, John Ivison is a political columnist likewise Jonathan Kay. Their columns are more than just opinion pieces. I would normally be inclined to accept them as sources for the quote being said. However the way its included in the article really doesnt reflect what they say in their columns. Ivison makes it clear that the commission says the quote was taken out of context, and Kay (in the only article I can find by him on the issue on the NP website) is actually supportive of the concept the (out of context) quote purports to be about. On the balance of things, I think it should totally be removed, or heavily reworded to reflect what the actual sources say. (The Edmonton Journal is not a really credible source on this, reliable possibly, but some basic errors lead me to discount it) Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • • Please explain why you believe that these opinion pieces are exempt from the rules that all other opinion pieces follow. Do you think that users did not have "political columnists" in mind when the rule was written? Who, then, was it written to exclude? What makes their pieces "more than just opinion pieces"? Could it be that you just agree with them? Obviously I agree that the material must be removed, but you're suggesting that editing can solve the problem, and editing cannot solve the problem of a source that is just flat-out inadmissible for BLP statements. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, what Ivison states is [16] "a commission spokesperson said this quote has been taken out of context and that if the question had been about freedom of expression, one of the freedoms guaranteed in the Charter, the answer would have been different." In other words, CHRC is not denying that Steacy made the above statement, but rather the CHRC is claiming he said this because he was asked about "Freedom of Speech" as opposed to "Freedom of Expression."
  • Also, What article in the Post are you referring to? In this article by Jonathan Kay [17], he certainly doesn't state that he is "supportive of the concept the (out of context) quote purports to be about", but rather states: "there was a grain of truth to what Mr. Steacy said: For decades, Canadians had meekly submitted to a system of administrative law that potentially made de facto criminals out of anyone with politically incorrect views about women, gays, or racial and religious minority groups."
  • Finally, David Warren's article in the Ottawa Citizen is also a reliable source [18]
  • In conclusion, we have three articles (each by a different author) from two major newspapers. I think this is sufficient.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 09:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC))

Thats the one I was looking at by Kay. He says 'there is a grain of truth' then goes off on a long extended column explaining why in fact he thinks there is much more than a grain of truth. I suspect 'I agree with Steacy' would have been too inflammatory for him to get away with given who he is attempting to preach to. (Even though what he is writing about is according to the commision not what Steacy was referring to) But like I said, I dont dispute that he said the statement, I just dont think what you are using them for is correct without a heavy re-write. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Really? In addition to the above statement, Kay goes on to say "All that was required was a complainant (often someone with professional ties to the CHRC itself) willing to sign his name to a piece of paper, claim he was offended, and then collect his cash winnings at the end of the process. The system was bogus and corrupt. But very few Canadians wanted to be seen as posturing against policies that were branded under the aegis of “human rights." Furthermore, where in this article does Kay even suggest that he agrees with Steacy?" With all due respect, when Kay states "Those words [of Steacy's] produced outrage. But there was a grain of truth to what Mr. Steacy said: For decades, Canadians had meekly submitted to a system of administrative law that potentially made de facto criminals out of anyone with politically incorrect views about women, gays, or racial and religious minority groups", it certainly doesn't sound, as you have suggested, that he implicitly agrees with Steacy (i.e. that Freedom of Speech has no value). Could you please be more specific as to exactly where in this aritcle Kay gives the impression that he agrees with Steacy?(Hyperionsteel (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC))

Also, given Kay's previous comments about (i.e. that in Mr. Steacy's mind, "Section 2 has been excised from his copy of the Canadian Charter of Rights.", I seriously doubt there is any implicit agreement between these two gentlemen about this issue.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC))

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

An editor has repeatedly added that Walid muallem is greek orthodox christian:[19] [20] [21]. I asked him on his talpage to stop adding unsourced material,[22] and he just re added it once again without saying anything: [23]

I see this as a BLP violation, he is the foreign minister of Syria and to claim that he is a christian while the state is massacring its (mainly muslim) people is contentious. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

One supposed source here appeared in the body of the article. It did not support the claim. I've reverted and removed the claim from the body as well. JFHJr (㊟) 04:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is continuing, he re added it without saying anything:[24] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe someone with some knowledge of Canadian politics can have a look at this--the edit history arouses some suspicion. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Not knowledgeable on the issues involved but I checked this out and found some good ol', run of the mill, unreliable sources, assorted weasel constructs, original research etc. Now we have to watch for any edit-warring aftershocks. The usual. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dr. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome Dr. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Restored to previous stable version

16:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Question re: recent removal of negative sourced content [25]: is this POV trivia that ought to be cut, or attempt to burnish the subject? 76.248.149.47 (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Unsourced information removed

16:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

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

I send this message to tell that the bibliography on Bamina Joseph content some untrue story. Bamina never had a second wife who had to be lifted from Burundi. If you want information on Bamina, Please contact Burundian autorities or contact directly his family in Burundi. Please delete this wrong information from your site. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.250.160.84 (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Editors are having a long 5 paragraph field day in Greta Berlin about a clumbsy, hurried facebook posting that ended up on a Free Gaza Movement twitter feed and the ensuing "controversy" as Berlin and others try to parse out just what happened. (Issue also brought up in WP:Undue 3 paragraph controversy section in Free Gaza Movement article.) The article started using non-WP:RS sources (like Gilad Atzmon's unverified blog), an obscure source which obviously was picked up by Bloomberg from Wikipedia - and they are now using as a source for Atzmon claim (in Greta Berlin)! Plus negative comments about her from activist groups which these editors NEVER be consider WP:RS if they were criticizing some one else they were more positive about. These editors are violating policy, including Wikipedia:BLP#Avoid_gossip_and_feedback_loops. Need other editors to step in since I can't keep reverting them all by myself. CarolMooreDC 18:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It's my understanding that Wikipedia has many, many statements that had originally been posted on personal blogs but were then cited by reliable sources and thus became viable for inclusion. What makes this one case different than the rest? Does the sequence of events really make any difference here? If so, where is that policy written up?

Also, is it established that Bloomberg picked up the reference from Wikipedia, or is that simply a speculation? The Bloomberg article makes no mention of Wikipedia. Frizzmaz (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I've started paring it down -- the quality of the sources is pretty poor. It's also clear that this article falls within the ambit of ARBPIA. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for help in clean up on Greta Berlin. Noted couple remaining issues on talk page. I'll work on still problematic Free Gaza Movement article when my 1RR 24 hours good and up, but have been busy BLP tagging it in the meantime. (Assuming tagging doesn't count as 1RR.)

I can see that WP:V needs to more clearly state the position on what can be used from Advocacy groups and that we can make sure the policy is impartially applied to all BLPs. Re-mentioning that in WP:BLP wouldn't hurt either. CarolMooreDC 20:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem here, Carol. If normally hostile editors are here citing Electronic Intifada, because it supports there interests for once, then we should allow them to do so, and hold them to it when we want to cite EI elsewhere. No need to aid their campaign to discredit EI as a source. RolandR (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

As long as they are willing to admit it's a solid source for negative facts and opinions about people they view favorably. Good luck on that one. (One even denies at this diff with my response that Mondoweiss is WP:RS for this - even as they think an advocacy group statement is! These people just do not recognize Wikipedia:V#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. I don't think the partisans are willing to give up double standard. But bring EI and MW to WP:RS and let's get a definitive conclusion. In the interim "more reliable" sources are piling on so that debate less relevant here. CarolMooreDC 18:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Please elaborate and clarify as to what rules of the BLP policy still specifically apply and applicable to the article for Jimmy Savile (Sir Jimmy Savile) (deceased), and the editing thereto. I thank you. -- KC9TV 19:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:BDP.--ukexpat (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that he's been dead for quite a while, it's not clear (certainly not from your post) what BLP issues would arise. Perhaps you could clarify; otherwise I'm not sure you'll receive much help here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

In as much as they relate to any living persons, all of them. In particular, we need to protect the privacy of any alleged victims of abuse, per WP:AVOIDVICTIM. And note, per WP:BLPNAME, that there is almost certainly no need to name the individuals concerned. Note also that WP:BLP policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia - including talk pages. Beyond WP:BLP policy, there are other potential concerns too - per WP:NOTNEWS we should avoid rushing to include every latest detail, but instead look to create an article of enduring utility. Obviously we also need to ensure that only the best sources are used, per WP:RS, and avoid tabloid sensationalism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I see. I thank you. -- KC9TV 16:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I covered a large percentage of the complaint in the subject line above.

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

Outright deletion may be the only solution here. There are very few independent sources involved here, but one article in The Guardian is among the few (i.e., not written by devotees), and it is an astounding comparison to the bias of the hagiography that Wikipedia is now presenting in the form of an encyclopedia article. Notability here is marginal (for Sangharakshita as separate from the organization he's involved with, etc.) and Wikipedia is apparently incapable of dealing with the long list of serious charges against the guy (some legal and some monastic) that have been documented in that one newspaper article alone --not to mention the websites criticizing the guy and his organization that (generally) fall short of the usual citation criteria.

Deletion is probably the best course here, because the current article is just totally unacceptable, and the talk page already indicates that there is no positive "way out". Note: I understand that the editors here don't have time to read all that much for any particular case, so I'm just directing you to contrast the Wikipedia article to the one (1997) piece [26] in The Guardian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jep Tong (talk • contribs) 07:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the template you added to the article - it was clearly the wrong one since it stated that "This article is about a living person and appears to have no references" etc. As for your concerns about the article go, I'd point out that non-adherence to WP:NPOV policy is not in itself grounds for deletion - that would depend on the merits of having a properly-written article on the subject - which is almost entirely determined by whether there is evidence from reliable sources that the individual meets our WP:Notability (people) guidelines. You are of course entitled to propose the article for deletion if you think that such notability cannot be shown (see the Wikipedia:Deletion policy for details), but otherwise, it is better to begin by discussing the issue on the article talk page - which you appear not to have done, and then raising specific concerns here or elsewhere should it prove impossible to resolve the issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Andy: Hi Andy, (1) sorry if the wrong template went up, (2) I realize that you're trying to apply the procedures in a reasonable way, but this is a surreal situation. Pretty much the only published source (making this article notable, etc.) is the one article from The Guardian newspaper (already linked to above). The gap between that one source and the substance of the Wikipedia article is night vs. day, or wine vs. vinegar, or as stark as could possibly be. I realize that the editors don't have the time to read outside sources in reviewing these cases, and that's why I've cited this one especially. When you move past that one source, you soon get into comparing written accounts from devotees (of the subject of the autobiography) that are non-NPOV in the extreme… and also denunciations from disillusioned former followers. Working just with The Guardian article reveals how deep the problems are here.

To give an example of how extreme the NPOV issues involved are here (and how scarce the citation-worthy sources are) consider the hagiography that the Wikipedia article now has concerning the subject's time in India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sangharakshita#India). This isn't merely a flattering version of events, but totally contradicts the accounts that we have in writing (immortalized on the internet) from witnesses and participants to the denunciation of the same man at the time of his departure, including public protests at which his photograph was lit on fire and burned. There was, thus, considerable anger against him, and the reasons stated for the charges include sexual misconduct and also the use of illegal drugs. Here's a first person source (and yes, I'm aware that this wouldn't normally be cited in an encyclopedia's bio of a living person, thus the problem, and thus this discussion): "As a mark of protest, on this 25th day of December, the 72nd anniversary of the burning of the 'Manusmirti', we are burning your photograph publicly…"

How does an encyclopedia deal with this type of stark (100%) contrast between propaganda and reality in the biography of a living person? Please note, again, that I am not claiming that the first person account I've just linked to is NPOV: it is, however, a source that directly contradicts this article. The only source that could be called (1) independent, (2) notable, and (3) NPOV is The Guardian article --and this, also, is totally contradicted by this very biased Wikipedia article. If the only shred of a notable publication (i.e., not produced by this guy's followers) is one that is disavowed and contradicted by the (promotional tone of) the Wikipedia article… where do the editors turn next? Any attempt to revise the article to be NPOV (or even to include contrasting opinions) will be prevented by the active followers of this religious leader.

I think it is an intractable problem, that could either be resolved by replacing the article with a simple bullet-point list of non-disputed facts (and then placing a "lock" on it) --or else by deleting the whole article as failing various criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jep Tong (talk • contribs) 22:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Nicholas Payton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

To whom it may concern.

In an effort to update information about Nicholas Payton, the edits that we are performing are being taken down almost instantly suggesting that someone is deliberately watching his page of Nicholas Payton, a living person and Artist that is represented by our firm. These changes are unauthorized and often mistaken with incorrect and inaccurate information.

Our efforts are strictly for the purpose of providing correct content and verifiable external links and biographical information. We are authorized to do so as the Legal representatives of Mr. Nicholas Payton.

Thank you. Anna M. Sala — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilar Cubasan (talk • contribs) 22:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Please have a look at WP:COI and WP:OWN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, there appears to be some WP:COPYVIO in this article, see [27]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Ms. Sala. Please thoroughly read WP:COI. Then read WP:EDITWAR. Then read WP:ADVERT. Then read WP:RS. Then read WP:PEACOCK. Then read WP:SOCK. Then, if you're wondering why you're reading WP:SOCK, read WP:DUCK. Then read WP:OWN. Once you've read all of this, please think carefully about ever edit-warring on this or any other article again. Thank you for your patience and understanding. Qworty (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• The WP:SPA who quacks like a WP:SOCK is now edit-warring and trying to force unsourced promotional material into the article. We need a lot more eyes on this one. Qworty (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Please see the talk page for Mjzz (talk · contribs). What is going on here is that the subject of the article, Misha Segal, objects to the section on him being a Scientologist. He says he is not active in Scientology and he considers the inclusion damaging. Given my history here and my sympathy for the issue he raises, I am going to pass this on to y'all. There may be issues of undue weight or of sourcing although the source looked OK to me. Anywho, I am going to send him here. Right now, he has removed the material again and that is where it stands at this moment. Thanks. Lyncs (talk) 06:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

What makes your source, http://www.thehollywoodsentinel.com/issue31MScomposer2.html , a reliable one? It's a pretty amateurish-looking website. Prioryman (talk) 07:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not the person who added the material; I just notice the section blanking and reversed it. I also considered the source but it appears to be a legitimate interview so I let it stand. See also related here and here. --Lyncs (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It is worth noting here that newsblaze.com and thehollywoodsentinel.com are both edited by the same person: Bruce Edwin. As for the substantive issue, I think this needs further investigation - and confirmation that Mjzz is indeed Misha Segal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I have encountered Newsblaze and Bruce Edwin before through issues with another Scientology-related BLP issue. Misha Segal's problem is Bruce Edwin. Edwin is a manager/promoter and masquerades as a journalist on his sites to publish interviews. In every case that I have looked at Edwin's clients are or were Scientologists. According to this interview of Edwin by, uh, Edwin himself, his own beliefs are treated differently: "My religion, as my relationships, I hold so sacred and dear that I do not discuss them so as not to taint them with public opinion or judgement". Both Newsblaze and The Hollywood Sentinel are nothing more than self-published press releases. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I have refreshed my memory about Newsblaze, and I should probably make it clear that Newsblaze is not solely the work of Bruce Edwin, but it still shouldn't be considered a reliable source for BLPs. We have about 600 links to it as a reference right now. The ones I spot-checked are all republications of press releases. I would suggest blacklisting it, but I don't have the time to do a more thorough look at the links to see if there is anything worth saving. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Libelous and defamatory comments have been posed by IP address 203.76.179.237 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.57.98 (talk) 11:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

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

I am a living artist trying to update a Wikipedia page on me and my work. I am trying to figure out formatting and appropriateness of material. Is there a way to get help with this?

I updated the page and it was flagged. Is there a way to start over again doing what Wikipedia wants?

If the article is re-edited to meet all of the criteria are the flags removed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rona_Pondick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art793 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I would read WP:COI. Its usually not a good idea to edit your own bio. I would also use the article talk page. This is a good place to have others comment and take a look. Good luck. --Malerooster (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I just came across this recently created category today. Is it appropriate for BLPs? It's not clear what the criteria are and I haven't checked the articles themselves to see what kind of referencing is used, but thought I'd flag this up. Voceditenore (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure about this cat. I guess if multiple RS call an individual androgynous, then it could apply. Another possibly problematic category on Wikipedia? I am in shock :) --Malerooster (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The category is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_10#Category:Androgynous_individuals. Jason Quinn (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

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

An edit request by new user User:Febosulo has posted the names of children and an adult woman to the Ronnie Coleman article's talk page that may be linked to the article's subject in a way that violates WP:BLPPRIVACY. This information is not supported by RELIABLE sources and seems like clear privacy issue. I have informed the user. I have also removed some other personal material from the article itself that was not supported by reliable sources. This is my first time dealing with such an issue so I'm interested in learning what if any action is taken. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

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

The fourth citation is erroneous - "John's Carpet House in East Detroit.[4]" John's Carpet House occurs at Frederick St and St Aubin St, in DETROIT, not East Detroit (which no longer exists by the way). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.226.1 (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Flagged at ANI for a possible sockpuppet thingamajig,could some BLPers take a look, a huge amount of self-promo, checked some sources that weerre self-written or uploadeed, hey the eeeee key is tsicking, ha ha, some stuff seems to check out, don't have time to review the seriousness of all the sources, Drmies already took out a chunk, me too, any more eyes, thanks! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

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

I am THE REAL Frenchie Davis. I can prove it if necessary. There are numerous discrepancies in my biography and EVERY time I try to edit them, someone edits them back to the erroneous info. Please help. I am not an R&B singer. I am a Broadway performer with a soulful voice but I record mostly dance music. There is no E at the end of my name. I was born in DC raised in Los Angeles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrenchieDavis (talk • contribs) 01:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Shazad Latif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, this is Shazad Latif and i wanted to correct some information on my page.

1 not of indian descent. I am half Pakistani and half English and Scottish

2 please remove information about Slumdog millionaire — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazad latif (talk • contribs) 11:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou for raising this. In regard to the second issue, there's going to be a bit of a concern that it formed part of your career, and therefore warrants a mention given that the claim doesn't seem particularly controversial. However, I've removed it again and raised it on the discussion page. You are very much welcome to add your thoughts there. And thanks again for bringing your concerns here. - Bilby (talk) 06:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Gerald Fredrick Töben (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject appears to be continuing to edit this article (and saying he is the subject, something I have no reason to doubt). The problem is he is adding unsourced material in places, and in other places adding material to sourced material that isn't in the source, although the edit makes it appear that it is in the source. Some pov editing as well. Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

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

There are a couple recent revisions that should probably be oversighted. Disavian (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Series of odd edits by Strobologna (talk · contribs); added some biographical data (some of which looks like it could be copyvio from one of the linked websites) but also removed all mention of his father Gary Strobel, who still appears on the list of faculty in connection with his rainforest collections (see [28]). Don't have time to look at it myself right now, but clearly needs some attention. Choess (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Prince Hassan bin Talal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please verify his membership to the Trilateral Commission. According to the list at http://www.trilateral.org/download/file/TC_list_10-11_2.pdf he results being a "Triennium participant", not a member. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koantao (talk • contribs) 11:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Resolved

 – Article deleted Malerooster (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is a blatant promotion and rambling autobiography:

• "host of international wellness workshops"
• "an eBook and made available to all through Stephens’ website"
• "Michael and Orranut split temporarily due to differences in their life direction"
• "private therapies, classes and workshops"
• "offering corporate HR and training programs"

It has no inbound links and was created on one day by an account not used since. It was tagged for notability and sources in Oct '11. Suggesting the next step is to flag this for deletion for notability? jk (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Zap! It was just speedied. Qworty (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Vandalism delt with.Malerooster (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

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

This article has a header with a personal insult toward the subject of the article. I am assuming this has something to do with the woman being a Democrat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.54.39 (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism - already dealt with by ClueBot NG, our faithful (if not always infallible) anti-vandal bot. Thanks for letting us know about it, anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Hi I am employed by Freud Communications and have Michael Edelstein as a client. We have noticed that Michael's page is out of date and would request the following additions:

• Michael joined NBCUniversal International in June 2010 as President of International TV Production and relocated to London.^[2]Michael Edelstein also serves as a board member of WTTV, NBCUniversal’s joint TV production venture with Working Title^[3]Edelstein also helped launch the CSI drama franchise when he was Director, Current Programs at CBS Entertainment.^[4]

• Michael won two Golden Globes for best comedy series, for 'Desperate Housewives'^[5]

For an image of Michael Edelstein, please see the image on this website: http://images1.variety.com/graphics/photos/_muge/edelstein_michael.jpg as this has been cleared for use, rights wise etc. If an original copy of the image is required for upload, then please leave a comment on this post and this can be arranged.

Thanks

Simon — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonFC (talk • contribs) 15:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Miguel Facussé Barjum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor with no prior edit history keeps removing this sourced paragraph and 2 external links from Miguel Facussé Barjum. I finally got the editor to comment at Talk:Miguel Facussé Barjum, where he claims they're libellous (even the external links?). Comments please. Rd232 ^talk 15:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

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

The article states "Magnante was also discussed in Moneyball, in which he was prevented from receiving his full retirement benefits - only ten days from retirement - by the acquisition of Ricardo Rincón."

The first edition paperback of Moneyball, on page 213, reads in part: "It wasn't that Mags was just four days short of his ten-year goal. He'd get his pension. It was that, in all likelihood, Mags was finished in the big leagues." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonslayerApps (talk • contribs) 04:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

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

An IP from the 128.211 range has repeatedly added[29] libelous claims in the article and on Talk:Thomas Keiser, which are not confirmed by the provided sources. However, even if the claims were true, it's highly questionable whether this should be included in the bio of the alleged victim. --Túrelio (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The source given by the IP, ain't a source for the claim he made. And any such claim requires extremely strong sourcing per WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this board, when nothing is done? The defamatory and unsourced statement was added again from the same IP range only 5 hours after this posting. Can't an admin at least semi-protect the article? In addition, the same IP is openly spreading her claim also elsewhere User talk:Yankees10#Thomas Keiser, which might also violate WP:BLP. --Túrelio (talk) 08:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the biography for two weeks and deleted the revisions. The section at the Yankees page has been hatted. De728631 (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Soledad O'Brien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could people please keep an eye on the Soledad O'Brien article - we have IP's inserting negative trivia and WP:BLP violations again. I could ask for semi-protection, but I think a few more eyes on the article might be more effective in the long term. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching it. I warned 128.59.135.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and they came back a few hours later as 128.59.112.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). A range block may be in order here. --Jayron32 23:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

We now have an IP attempting to justify inclusion of trivia on WP:OR-breaching grounds: "Taken as a single event, it could be considered to be trivia. But I'm trying to document a pattern. So in totality, it's not". [30] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I've left the IP a note and advised them to use the talk page. I've added the article to my watchlist. GiantSnowman 16:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

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

The School shooting article refers to a number of living and recently-dead people as having killed others at various schools around the world. In cases where there is no citation, that seems to be a violation of WP:BLP and WP:BDP. I have requested references for anything in the last 20 years via ((Citation needed)).

Question: Should I instead be deleting such information under the "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" rule? RossPatterson (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, no. Unless you believe the information to be actually wrong, it's better to just find sources yourself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I just added some missing references.[31] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

As a general rule, though, with something this serious, I'd make a good faith attempt to find a source before removing, but if I can't find one then BLP concerns woudl probably mean removing the content. - Bilby (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! RossPatterson (talk) 10:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

List of family relations in American football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This inquiry was originally posted at the WP:BLP talk page. It has been suggested that it should more appropriately be posted here.

List of family relations in American football is a list of players and coaches of American football who are purportedly related by family to one degree or another. The list includes over 300 individual football players clustered in over 125 family groups. Over sixty percent of the individuals listed are still living. The article asserts that various persons are family members, twin brothers, fathers and sons, cousins, and various other relations. The entries for each person also include a list of teams played or coached by such person, often with the years of association with the particular team. The article does not contain a single source for any of the persons, living or dead, who are listed, nor for any of the various purported family relationships set forth in the list. Not one single source for any of the persons listed. [Since my original post on the BLP talk page, one source has been added.] This material is not necessarily contentious, but is subject to challenge in many instances because it may or may not be accurate in many of the particulars, including the degree of family relationships asserted. Does this constitute a violation of WP:BLP? If so, what is the remedy? The article has been nominated for AfD in the past 48 hours. Your advice is hereby solicited. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

As stated on the AfD page, I am willing to overhaul the article this weekend - add sources and remove all unreferenced additions. GiantSnowman 09:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

it has begun... GiantSnowman 09:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Snowman, this inquiry is not intended to preclude your efforts to upgrade the article with sources, which I applaud wholeheartedly. I am not crusading for deletion; I want to see the sourcing problems resolved. The reason for this question is to determine whether the article's present condition constitutes a material violation of the BLP policy, based on the best advice of editors who work with BLP policy on a regular basis. Obviously, if you properly source the article over the next several days, this inquiry becomes academic. Nevertheless, I think it would valuable to my understanding and others who are participants in the present AfD discussion to clarify this issue. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You might want to re-check the "present condition" - I've already wielded my axe ;) GiantSnowman 10:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Nigel Martin-Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am the above and in your page about me someone has reported that I opened new club Mancunia and the "community felt cheated as it was the same club as Essential". This is libelous. Would you please remove it Mancunia was a totally new venture with several partners and a completely new club to the afore mentioned Essential and the writer may have felt "cheated" but this is a personal view and that person cannot speak for the "community" whatever that is ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.64.129 (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the majority of the section on Essential as it was unreferenced and full of personal opinion. GiantSnowman 13:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

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

On a state senator's wikipedia page, a user added "Ethics Complaints and State Investigations", the content of which are accusations from the Republican party to the candidate. This new information is not verified, as it cites Republican news sources (the Republican YouTube page and a right wing blog). It is a partisan attack with material that is not relevant to the wikipedia page.

The newly-added section violates NPOV, Veriability and No original research — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bambola1242 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed some attack content which was written in a shamelessly partisan way, and sourced to such non-reliable sources as a business Political action committee's website. Could some other editors (preferably non-Democrats) take a further look? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why it should matter what Party one belongs to in order to review an article. Partisan POV pushing is a bad thing from either side. Just saying. --Malerooster (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I took a stab. --Malerooster (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

We must not only be NPOV, but be seen as being NPOV. Since I'm outspokenly anti-Republican, I felt it was all the more important that other editors who don't necessarily agree with me (or Sachs) be involved. I have, however, removed the link to a document posted on scribd.com, which is a place where you can upload anything you want. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough and thanks for your candor. --Malerooster (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deziree Ramirez, it appears that this article is based on an elaborate hoax borrowing the identity of someone else. I think there is some cause for short-circuiting the AFD process and summarily deleting and salting the article. Mangoe (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

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

This biographical article reads a bit like a press release from the subject's publicist. For instance he is stated in the first paragraph to have had "major movie roles", but in the very next sentence we are told he has supporting actor roles in four very obscure movies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Gbrims (talk • contribs)

Please use 4 tildes(~) to sign your somments and also feel free to edit the article as you see fit. Not sure if you used the article talk page but that is good also. I took a stab at copy editing the article based on your concerns. A little better? --Malerooster (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Colt Brennan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There are two Terry Brennans that live in Irvine, California. The Terry Brennan that is CEO and President of Leighton & Associates is not Colt Brennan's father. Please remove this reference immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.68.221 (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I remove the sentence as the cited source doesn't even mention his parents, let alone confirm who is father is. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – SPA has been blocked and multiple users are watching this now. --Malerooster (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Subject to editing by an SPA that was digging up all kinds of court records, traffic tickets, and public records on her law career. He cluttered the talk page with accusations of medical conditions and lots of other inappropriate synthesis and speculation based on the public records. I have blanked the worst stuff off the talk page. The article could use some additional watching. Gigs (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the controveries section that had a blog entry as its only cite. --Malerooster (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at this article tonight and was, frankly, appalled. Although Gigs and others have mitigated the worst problems, which I appreciate, what has been going on for the past 9 days was disgraceful. All kinds of negative and in some cases bizarre comments about the BLP subject were being made by a new SPA, User:OneWhoDoesNotLikeCrooks, which given the context of the contributions should have been blocked on sight as a username violation. I'd like to ask that some administrators and experienced editors monitor this page between now and the election. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I did leave a note for Go Phightins!, letting him know I think he made a pretty big mistake giving a third opinion earlier on this page without catching what seemed to me to be blatant violations of BLP policy. It is concerning to me as well that none of the editors that encountered this page earlier took it more seriously. Gigs (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It lokks like we are all on the same page more or less so I marked it as resolved and will keep it on my watch list. If this hasn't been resolved to anybody satisfaction, please feel free to remove the tag. --Malerooster (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

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

I changed the dates in the infobox of her and Justin Timberlake's marriage from 'm. 2012' to '(2012-present)'. It's been consistently reverted back to the 'm. 2012' way even after I stated Infobox spousal guidelines. It's been discussed on her talk page but it needs to be settled on which is the correct format Lady Lotus (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Repeating myself for the 101st time here. "2012-present" is like saying "2012-2012". 2012 is the present. The above user simply WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Zac (talk · contribs) 04:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I was the one who originally changed it to 'm. 2012' - but I did not do that by writing 'm. 2012' the way it is now, I did that only by way of inserting the standard Wikipedia marriage formatting tag. I am baffled to return to my computer and discover this has somehow led over the last few hours into an argument between the two of you. What both of you seem to be overlooking is that the reason it said 'm. 2012' is because that is how the standard marriage tag works. It ONLY lists the year the couple married, unless the marriage has since ended by death or divorce, in which case it will say (2012-2015) or whatever year the death or divorce occurred. So even for a couple who got married as long ago as 1972, as long as they remain married today, it would just say (m. 1972), not (m. 1972-present). See Danny Devito as an example. It has nothing to do with the fact that 2012 is still the present, so the argument you two are having is irrelevant and the formatting as it stands now ('m. 2012' randomly inserted there, not by way of the marriage tag) looks incorrect, imo. Either use the standard marriage tag, or use the 2012-present format that is used in some articles that haven't adopted the marriage tag. Starswept (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Starswept

Oh, and I would add that the Infobox spousal guidelines Lady Lotus is citing do note that the marriage tag can be used instead of the (year-present) formatting, so that didn't come out of left field. Starswept (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Starswept

Both (m. 2011) and (2011-present) can be used for the infobox, in which I prefer the former. The issue here actually was the fact that 2012 is the present, and therefore "-present" cannot be added onto it. Lady Lotus said to me that it doesn't matter because 2013 is just a few months away, which is a violation of crystal ball. At least that was the issue with me. I re-added the marriage template, and it removed. Zac (talk · contribs) 04:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes the guidelines says that the marriage tag could be used for convience but yea it doesnt do anything for people still married, only if there is a set to and from date, not if they are still married. And this is NOT an issue of "ICANTHEARYOU" because i could easily say the same about you. All I'm saying is that yea it looks a little weird because it is still 2012 and you wouldnt put (2012-2012) unless they get divorced in the next 2 months, so it needs to have 'present' with it until one of them either dies or they split up. marriage should always have a start and a finish or a start and a "tbd". Lady Lotus (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is it needed? Right now it says: Spouse(s): Justin Timberlake (m[arried] 2012). As a reader, I conclude: Jessica Biel has a spouse. His name is Justin Timberlake. They got married in 2012. There is nothing even remotely ambiguous about that. I don't need to be told they are still married - it's obvious. If they were divorced or dead it would say so. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the template may need to be updated. As for the consenus, on the talkpage there were only three editors involved and could be seen as a rough consensus as Lady Lotus did fail to demonstrate a valid reasoning for their version while two editors have explained that the use of the term Present is not needed. The fact that the issue is so pressing for Lotus is a concern that they may be trying to "win" this situation. The "I can't here you" appears to be LL who, even after several venue attempts and comments, still refuses to accept what has clearly become the consensus. If the editing continues after this unabated, this may be a case for an RFC/U.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen me change it since last night? No, so don't threaten me with RFC, I wanted to get consensus, and I got consensus yelled at me, it just wasn't in my favor. Lady Lotus (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth is this here? Is there any BLP violation? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - this is a petty edit war, please use the article talk page instead. GiantSnowman 15:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I've warned both Zac and Lady Lotus for edit warring. GiantSnowman 15:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

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

defamatory or libelous information has been added to the biography of this person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shawn_Atleo&diff=518863549&oldid=517242850 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.38.206 (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the report - I have removed it - please in future consider WP:BOLD being bold and removing it yourself - Youreallycan 13:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The violator User:85.112.95.8 - contributions is also a proxy server - WP:Proxy - perhaps an admin can block it - I don't know the place to report proxy IPs - Youreallycan 13:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I've opened a report at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies. JFHJr (㊟) 15:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Aw, thank you John, for the report and for the link. - Youreallycan 15:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Tanveer Ashraf Kaira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kindly refer to the article (link below) on the biography of a living pakistani politician Mr. Kaira. Some of the contents are highly libelous, poorly sourced and should be removed immediately. Especially, the section titled "Corruption" which declares him to be one of the most corrupt politicians without providing any proof or whatsoever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanveer_Ashraf_Kaira — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.190.91.136 (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Currently it is not in the article. Given that it wa unsourced and clearly controversial, I'll keep an eye on it. - Bilby (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Michael Smith (newspaper reporter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi The title for my entry on Wikipedia (originally put up by someone else, not me!) says that I am a news reporter. I have corrected the body of the text to make clear that this is no longer the case but can't edit the title. I am now a full-time author and screenwriter and would prefer that to be in the title rather than the now inaccurate news reporter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickwsmith (talk • contribs) 11:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi! The difficulty here is that we choose the disambiguation based on what a person is best known for, rather than necessarily what they do now - the question is whether or not someone would be most likely to recognise you as an author or as a journalist. To be honest, your work as a journalist made considerable impact, so the choice is a bit harder than normal. But I'll raise in on the talk page, and I'm inclined to go with your suggestion, although it may warrant a bit more discussion just to check that everyone is happy with the move (which I expect to be the case). - Bilby (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

How do RS refer to Smith? Maybe provide 1 or 2 here and then we are good to go. Or just go ahead and go :). --Malerooster (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

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

This article is about me, Beth Johnson, former mayor of Delta, British Columbia, Canada. It states, incorrectly, that I was elected on the NDP party line. This is untrue, and I would like to rephrase the sentence to say, " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocanada73 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Lacking a source for party - it goes. Collect (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Martin A. Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Previous BLPN thread

I'm having a little trouble with this article, in particular with 77TellTheTruth88 (talk · contribs). The same kind of edits are recurring, and they present problems of undue weight, reliable sources, original research and unverifiable claims (sometimes incorrectly attributed to a source), WP:POV, and even a fringe idea or two. Generally, this editor has not discussed on relevant threads at user talk and article talk pages. Several discussions appear in both places. Any eyes, hands, and second opinions on the article would be appreciated.

I'd also like to point out that the same editor has uploaded PDFs onto Wikipedia (see file contribs), and cites to them in the article. I'm not entirely comfortable with this approach to sourcing with certain publications. Thoughts, anyone? JFHJr (㊟) 21:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

In my view JFHJr has done a lot of great work to clean up this article over the past few days. I also agree that 77TellTheTruth88 (talk · contribs) has not yet fully grasped some of the fundamentals of how this process is supposed to work. Famspear (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

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

The user named "Toccata quarta" keeps deleting the fact that Kasparov is of Armenian and Jewish descent. He claims that ethnicity should not be implied in the introduction of the articles, yet at the same time he keeps the sentence that says "Kasparov is a Russian chess grandmaster" on. So, please, either make sure nothing is really said about his ethnicity, or let the truth be written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabkhach (talk • contribs) 21:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

'Truth'? Kasparov is of Russian (& formerly Soviet) nationality, and a Russian (& formerly Soviet) Chess grandmaster. His parent's ethnicity is described in the article. Why do you think that it is so important to put it into the lede? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:MOSBIO. Ethnicity should not be in the lede unless it is the reason for the person's notability. --Malerooster (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The above article Is being discussed at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard.

Here is a summary as to why this matter is being brought to the BLP Noticeboard:

An editor posted a revised version of Frank L. VanderSloot, curing what he claims were violations of WP:Reliable sources and WP:No original research (the right-hand version at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&diff=518705766&oldid=518703432, with the edit summary "See Talk. "Synthesis and sources").

That revised version was reverted three times, by two different editors.

The question for this Noticeboard is: Based on the fact that this article adversely reflects on a Living Person, with possible use of faulty references and original research, which version should made live in the current Wikipedia?— as discussion goes on within the 'WP:No original research/Noticeboard. Please use that noticeboard to discuss this question.

Note: "If an issue crosses boundaries, . . . choose one or the other, and if necessary, post a very brief message at the other board to point interested editors to the first noticeboard." Wikipedia:Noticeboards#List_of_Wikipedia.27s_noticeboards

GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Drudge Report falls under WP:BLP as indicated in prior discussions. There have been many prior discussions on whether to call it "conservative" in Wikipedia's voice, and the main proponent of that claim is now banned for socking. No prior discussions have, in fact, found it proper to so call the website in Wikipedia's voice, and the article has always included the statement that some have called it "conservative" thus claims of "whitewashing" fail from the start.

We now have a "new" IP who has been reverting to get the claim in again [32], [33], and I feel that raising the issue here is proper. I find his assertion as a new user The consensus is that 99% of people consider Drudge conservative. I have yet to see a contrary source to be an indication that the "new user" has not read the discussions on the article talk page. The sources furnished are generally very "bloggish" or "opinions" at best (DailyBeast, MediaMatters, Gawker, Slate etc.) , and the person seems to ignore the studies showing that while Drudge, as a person, may be libertarian, the report covers the gamut in stories, including being a major driver for non-conservative sites linked. Thus the consensus before about saying some consider it conservative was sufficient. The prior discussions all agreed with this position (other than the one banned sockmaster) Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Every article "falls under" BLP. I don't know if weasel words are a good solution to this disagreement. I'd say that if there is too much complexity in the public perception of the site, then just avoid making a vague declaration in the lede about it. You can talk about it in more detail in the body in a way that avoids weasel words. Gigs (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Caribbean Medical University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In 2011, a CMU student stabbed another CMU student and faculty member in a CMU dorm. The stabbed student died from her wounds. The assailant was assigned to one year of psychiatric care. This material has multiple verifiable sources. Another editor on the CMU talk page cited WP:BLPCRIME as a reason for keeping the information out of the article, but from my understanding that only applies to those accused of crimes. I'd like to get additional input because I think it belongs in the article, even if names aren't included. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 18:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The material was properly removed; WP:BLPCRIME applies to someone who is reported to have perpetrated a crime and who is relatively unknown. I would read this to cover any bad acts that have obvious criminal consequences, and that includes stabbing. If you think WP:1E is satisfied (against WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS, there may be grounds for a separate article; I haven't looked into that possibility and can't say whether that's the case. See Murder of Eve Carson for one case that passes that bar. The murder doesn't belong on the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill article, though. So in any event, the presence of the stabbing in the Caribbean Medical University article is certainly WP:UNDUE. JFHJr (㊟) 03:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

BLPCRIME discourages us from publishing the name of the person who is accused of the crime. It doesn't prevent us from publishing details of the crime itself. That falls under normal editorial policy (weight, etc.). Buddy431 (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's right -- and it also doesn't prevent us from saying (when true) that a named individual has been convicted of a crime. As Buddy431 indicates, that's not necessarily a green light here -- other editorial policies are likely to be relevant, and perhaps the material in question should not be included. But that decision should be made on the right grounds. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Vanity piece by a tech blogger. Further, not supported any sources. Please review for noteworthiness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bickerdeal (talk • contribs) 01:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a few mentions of her due to her role as a political commentator. I don;t think they are enough to meet the notability requirements, but it suggests that it is worth digging a bit more. Accordingly, I've tagged the article for notability concerns, and I'll see if I can dig anything up. If not, I probably needs to be nominated for deletion. - Bilby (talk) 06:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Joseph L. Goldstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

BLP that's short on inline cites and long on listings of research papers. Recent edits [34] suggest that a COI account is currently involved. I suppose one of the questions is whether papers by a Nobel laureate are all assumed to be notable, and therefor such long listings, unaccompanied by third party sources, are acceptable. My thinking is that lists be cut and prose be expanded. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well, now the article's been scrubbed altogether and redirected for lack of reliable sources--I don't think there's any question re: notability. Does Wikipedia not accept the Nobel page bio as a source [35]? Eh, I give up. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Good strong secondary WP:RS for a well-written WP:BIO should be found by those with the time and interest to create an article that does not rely merely on one verifiable source. This is certainly the standard for any biographical article, and there is no reason why it cannot be met here. What we can't have is WP:COI and/or WP:AUTO accounts inserting non-WP:RS materials in a self-promotional fashion that obscures efforts to establish the actual, verifiable notability of the subject. Qworty (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that most of the article seemed reasonable, and there is no doubt that a Nobel Prize winner is notable, it seems better to try and reference the material rather than delete it out of hand. I'll see what I can do. - Bilby (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

By all means! Qworty (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• User:Qworty deleted all the content and then redirected the article, I see the possibility of wiki notability and I have asked him to revert the content back in and nominate it for deletion discussion - Youreallycan 18:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • AfD isn't appropriate for a Nobel Prize winner. The problem with the article is that a WP:AUTO account stuffed it so full of non-WP:RS puffery that it was useless in its previous form. As I said above, good strong secondary WP:RS must now be found and a solid, verifiable article should be written, one that is in keeping with WP policies. That is the approach that I would support. Qworty (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
    • You have basically deleted it - Please replace some detail or nominate correctly at AFD - Youreallycan 18:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
• The WP:AUTO problems continue with this one. About half an hour ago [36], an anonymous IP from the University of Texas at Dallas, where Professor Goldstein works, blanked the article. I'm going to restore it as a stub and see where other editors want to take it from there. But by no means am I going to take it to AfD. It would be a speedy keep, even as a redirect. Qworty (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I've now created a stub. Editors other than Professor Goldstein himself should now begin the process of building a verifiable article with appropriate WP:RS. Any further promotional edits from Goldstein should be reverted. Qworty (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks Qworty - if and when the subject returns I will attempt a dialog with him to explain why he should allow others to create the bio and request his assistance if needed - Youreallycan 19:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• David Hammond (director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am the subject of this page. I did not create the page, which appeared about 10 years ago. Since then, I have occasionally corrected dates and added subsequent activities. Periodically, starting just over a year ago, someone using various names has entered and re-entered false information on the page. I believe it is a disgruntled former student from more than a decade ago. I normally simply edit these comments, but in the last two weeks these insertions have accelerated and now include changing comments from others by replacing adjectives with abusive alternatives and elminating the history of the last ten years. I have had an honorable career and am respected in my profession. Can someone help me with this problem? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.98.126.87 (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning to the registered account that has most recently persisted in WP:BLP violations, adding unsourced defamatory content. If this persists abusive accounts will be blocked, and the page can be protected if necessary. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

There is now a source for the material in question -- except that it doesn't cover everything being written in that paragraph and the paragraph will need to be reworded. If no one gets to it soon, I can probably make the time later today. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The source is a long way short of validating the content, so I've removed the paragraph for now. I'd be wary of giving too much weight to that section, given the nature of the issues and the sourcing. - Bilby (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

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

I believe this is a spoof page intended to offend Danuel Pipoly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.33.82.75 (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks well dodgy - taking no chances - tagged and blanked with Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G10 - as an attack page - Youreallycan 18:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

No, check the article history. That dodgy stuff was vandalism by Jorge_mireles. Reverted to proper version. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

And the article was deleted anyway. Am I seriously the only person who bothered to check the article history? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I assumed the vandal created it - I have a poor internet connection this evening - I reported the vandal and they have been indefed - the article is replaced with the vandals edits hidden from view - so all is well - thanks for your help. Youreallycan 19:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

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

This is a bogus page about (as far as I can tell) a fictitious person. Its content was copied directly from the entry for me, Steven Pinker (pinker@wjh.harvard.edu). It should be taken down as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenpinker (talk • contribs) 19:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, it's a hoax and I apologize on behalf of Wikipedia to the extent that it is possible for any one individual editor to do so. I have tagged the article for speedy-deletion. Zad68 19:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Hoax article deleted. Zad68 20:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Other editor (User:DWARDFSU) just keeps inserting same content without any source.Alt Content (talk) 10:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Editor warned. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ursula Bielski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reeks of self-advertisement; only "source" is the author blurb at her publisher's website. This one came to my attention because an account with the same name as that of her company was editing the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed all unreferenced claims. I'll have a look for sources, but a quick check just now does not fill me with confidence. I may just AfD it. GiantSnowman 13:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Robert Mason, author of Chickenhawk_(book)

Whoever rewrote this article has Bob's birth date wrong and has turned it into his own version of reality especially the ridiculous version of the Ia Drang battle and "at least 6 months of which was in Vietnam." WTF. "He was assigned to the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) for approximately one year (including over 6 months in Vietnam).[1]" this is a quote which makes it clear the person is an IDIOT. Bob went over on a boat with the whole First Cav and spent about 9 months with them before he transferred to the 48th Aviation Co. People were asked to transfer out so all the Cav pilots would not go home at the same time since it was a one year tour. the next quote:"Mason spent an intense two days during the Battle of Ia Drang hovering for many hours far above the terrain, while a full colonel and two Army captains sat in the back of his helicopter, coordinating ground units by radio.[This happened BEFORE Ia Drang] Mason followed this over-extended duty with a contested night landing to pick up wounded troopers. Mason would also ferry supplies to an artillery unit and deliver more troops from 1st Battalion, 7th Cavalry to Landing Zone X-Ray later in that battle.[Everyone did this] In repeated missions, Mason delivered more than one hundred wounded troops from the battle zone to the Division hospital tent [???? this is not in the book, so where is it from?] and came under fire repeatedly, taking several hits to his helicopter." Whoever wrote it has no understanding of what happened and should not be allowed to write his own fiction for Wikipedia. Before whoever this was rewrote the article on Bob, it was relatively accurate except for the wrong birth date. I hate it when people who weren't there and don't understand produce their own version of events especially when it is about my husband. Patience Mason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.131.72.37 (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look and see what I can do. I haven't had the opportunity to read Chickenhawk before, but I have no purchased a copy, so I'll try to catch up on that side. In the meantime, I'll clean up the account as best I can. - Bilby (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Tsai Chin (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is about me and I did not create any of it. I want to remove the article and start over. Please help me do so.

Tsai Chin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsai chin real (talk • contribs) 21:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

After a quick read, I do not see anything negative in the current article. I do not know anything about you so I can not comment on the accuracy of the article. Is there anything in the article that is inaccurate? As a general rule Wikipedia actually expects articles to be written by people who are not connected to the subject of the article. Writing articles where you have a conflict of interest is discouraged, I would suggest you read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia:Autobiography. GB fan 22:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

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

This person recently produced content on facebook which drew attention from several women's rights individuals, blogs, and news sources. A brand new user (joined yesterday) keeps deleting the controversy section. The content is well sourced on several external sites and is not likely to be fabricated. I believe it meets all BLP requirements and should be part of the article. Latest delete diff follows. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dario_Maestripieri&diff=518689810&oldid=518624567

I currently only see Jezebel and Chicago Maroon articles about it, plus various blog posts. If it get's picked up by more news agencies it might be worth including, but now now. a13ean (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

At what point does it become news and not a blog? The breaking of the story was on a blog (Drugmonkey), and the conversation has largely happened in social media. Jezebel is a blog, as are all Gawker sites, though evidently they are considered news? Here's a list of other articles I've found: Inside Higher Ed, Boing Boing, The Scientist, The Cellular Scale, Isis the Scientist, Adventures in Ethics and Science (For reference, here is the link to the Chicago Maroon article.) -effigies (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The Scientist article is worth something, but the blogs don't really help here. It becomes news when reliable news sources pick up the story, and so far, that hasn't really happened, although it could easily in the next day or two. a13ean (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No source yet has actually done ANY investigative journalism. Reblogging an iPhone screen grab is not journalism. This why I deleted the controversy section. If an MSM source actually interviews Dr. Maestripieri to get his side of the story, then sure, add it to the page, but without full context of the comment its hearsay at best, libel at worst. -PseduDoxing (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The story was picked up by Inside Higher Ed this morning. They have attempted to contact Dr. Maestripieri by email and phone and were unable to reach him. A University spokesperson has stated that he had decided not to comment. Is that enough investigative journalism? Is Wikipedia not allowed to show a controversy on a BLP page if the person never directly comments on it? - SpinozaQ (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact remains that it's gossip about a private facebook post. If you want to talk about controversy, go read his posts over at psychology today [37]. He's a human behavior researcher that focuses on sex characteristics. His jesting about gender roles is obvious, but of course some may be offended and interpret his musings as insults, for better or for worse. I'm sure you can pull something juicy and more relevant out of that. It would have the added benefit of actually being vetted by the content creator. -PseduDoxing (talk 18:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That is true. The now widely known controversial statement is well within the context of the individual's published research on sex characteristics. More reason it should be included in his page. It may have been a completely neutral statement or observation. It did however, cause a controversy. The section is not negatively written, it merely states, like you say, that some people were offended, and cites those sources that wrote about the issue. (P.S Please fix your computer PseduDoxing. Every edit you have made to Wikipedia in the lifetime of your account, 24 hours, has deleted random words that has broken links and templates. ) SpinozaQ (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, context highlighter was on and inserting html. I'm glad that the length of time my account has been active has any bearing in a rational discussion on this topic. Seems valid. If it's Wikipedia's policy to highlight gossip as actual controversy that should be immortalized, then I guess it should stick. I sure hope no one ever gets a hold of my email or facebook account. The things that could be taken out of context and judged poorly in the court of public opinion would be enormous. -PseduDoxing (talk 20:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Just adding that this has now been covered on Science Magazine's blog page. Science Careers -effigies (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Scientific American blogs, Times Higher Education, Pitt News and Daily Wildcat (U of Arizona student newspaper) have picked up the story. The Times Higher Education article is a reprint of the Inside Higher Ed piece. Just to keep this thread up to date with the level of coverage. -effigies (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Another update: Chicago Tribune and Chronicle of Higher Education -effigies (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The University of Chicago Provost has issued a statement on the matter. University of Chicago News. - SpinozaQ (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to omit the material for now. It's on the edge of notability and I don't think we need to help promote it. If it takes off further it can be included later. Mangoe (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree. Please leave this material out until it is widely covered by relaible main stream sources. --Malerooster (talk) 01:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a few blog as well as opinion pieces now making the rounds. Unless more comes of this, this still seems pretty insignificant. Guy makes stupid tweet, is that really artilce worthy? I will soon bow out and defer to others. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how some editors are concluding that the controversy has not received "significant coverage" when we have reliable sources that I cited in this edit saying exactly the opposite. While it is certainly true that wikipedia should not be mirroring every faux scandal hawked by gossip sites like Jezebel or personal blogs, when an issue concerning an academic is covered by sources such as Scientific American, The Scientist and Inside Higher Ed, which are as good as it gets in this area (and are already, and correctly, used as sources elsewhere in the article) it is hard to see why the wikipedia article on the subject should not reflect them. As this posting on the topic at the Science Careers website says:

Being a serious scientific publication, we resisted commenting when we saw heated discussion in the blogosphere (link not suitable for work) about the unfortunate observation that University of Chicago evolutionary biologist and neurobiologist Dario Maestripieri posted on Facebook. But now that Inside Higher Ed has reported on the resulting "furor," we figure it must be serious enough for Science Careers.

That is exactly the standard that wikipedia is supposed to be following per its policies, WP:RS, WP:DUE and WP:BLP. Can the editors opposing the inclusion clarify their thinking on the issue ? (Note: I posted this on the article talk page before noticing that the discussion has moved here; so I have copied my comment here.) 24.12.201.87 (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this incident has received coverage sufficient to justify a brief passage in the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Joshua Pascoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recent edit linked article to ongoing court case. memphisto 11:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be resolved as there are lots of over-sighted edits - and a couple of active admins watching, so ... if the IP violator returns return, I suggest semi protection straight away - I would do it now if I had the button - Youreallycan 20:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Could someone have a look at this article? I'm not sure if it's appropriate to compare Cristiano Ronaldo and Heather Mills with Osama Bin Laden and Adolf Hitler. A user already tried to remove it several times, but was reverted. Thank you, Multichill (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The 'article' has been deleted as the obvious bit of nonsense it was. [38] AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted by me. All this was was a transwikied dicdef one liner, used over time to link various people to the phrase "hate figure" and Adolph Hitler. Waste of time.--Scott Mac 18:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I had a look and was disgusted by the edit history, didn't bother commenting such as sometimes its just not worth it at this project - well done Scott - Youreallycan 18:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for solving this. Probably worth keeping on the watchlist. Multichill (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Article is receiving persistent vandalism/potentially libelous comments today. Variety of registered and anon users. -- Brianhe (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Can people please keep an eye on this article - Turner seems to have said something controversial [39] and sections of the US the right-wing media are having a field day. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

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

I twice reverted a long passage at Talk:James Buchanan‎ that makes serious unfounded accusations against a prominent scholar named Baker. The first posting was: 23:08, 24 October 2012‎ 69.86.131.90; then the passage was restored by someone else at 11:57, 25 October 2012‎ Contaldo80. The original IP made statements with no supporting evidence or citation. Rjensen (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a user is opining excessively in violation of WP:FORUM to me, as a minimum. - I notified User_talk:Contaldo80#BLPN_topic and User talk:69.86.131.90 of this report/discussion ?Youreallycan 18:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me of this thread. Can you specify what aspect of WP:FORUM you think is in violation please. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Article does not seem to be written from an objective viewpoint and uses multiple dubious "references", such as "As reported by Dr. Tsui's cardiologist". Attys (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Not only are some references dubious -- not a single one is clickable. This is perhaps taking WP:SOURCEACCESS to an extreme. I'm torn as to what to do here; I'm tempted to stubbify it -- but who knows, perhaps it's all true and even verified... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there some kind of a sourceaccess warning box template? Attys (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The article smells of self-promotion to me, though the original article (when it was 2kbyte long) appears to be good. He appears to have written one text book that has been reputably published by Wiley and has designed a number of structures none of which, apart from his parent's home, have actually been built. I would favour cullling the article dramatically to maybe 20% of its current size. Martinvl (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that cutting the article back is a good idea here. This appears to be the WP:SPA that's responsible for the puffery [40]. So I'm going to be bold and cull it back to the point before that editor appeared. In my edit summary, I'll reference this discussion, so that we can be upfront with any editor who might question the reduction. And, of course, if anyone here has an issue with my edit, by all means let's discuss the matter further so that we can arrive at a version that we can all live with per consensus. Qworty (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I support what you've done. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the autobio, resume, and ref improve flags after the aforementioned changes were committed. Attys (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Is this article for real or is this a joke? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.73.118 (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Reverted to last good revision, possible that User:MarkMysoe account was taken over? -- Brianhe (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

My account has not been taken over. The last revision I made was the correct information of Melissa Satta and her career with the sources provided. Melissa Satta's true occupation is not that of a model, television presenter or actor. After going through a deep research, I have found that she does not earn her income from modelling, television presenting or acting. Melissa Satta earns her income and fame from pursuing wealthy men under the false occupations of being a model, television presenter and actor as her income. The list of men and pictures were those that she had been in a relationship with and gained her income from. I believe the world should know the truth about Melissa Satta, and the false information of Melissa Satta being a model, television presenter and actor. Wikipedia is for the truth of information and not for false information. – MarkMysoe (talk) 05:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about Truth, it is about Verifiability. If you want to make sure "people know the truth" feel free to start a blog. I have reverted your edit, which basically made the subject of the article out to be a high priced whore. Have you any sources which state, precisely, that she pursued any of these men for the money? You will need several high quality sources before we can even discuss having this in the article, as it is very negative. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I've encountered Mark before at BLPs; his edits at this article have been unacceptable and I have warned him. GiantSnowman 10:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

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

I found the BLP article does not contain any reference.---Now wiki (talk) 06:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

There are no inline references, but there are four sources to that article. I have changed the tag, as this is not an unreferenced BLP. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Its hardly 'unclear citation' either really. Its a two paragraph stub bio with 4 sources. Sources at bottom is good enough. Inline isnt going to make a huge difference. I'm not going to wade in on the notability given its sourced to 'The Bark' though. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I've changed to a more appropriate tag. GiantSnowman 11:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, could not remember that one. Knew there was one... senile puppy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Of the four sources noted, I feel at least two are questionable. Finally, is the subject truly notable?---Now wiki (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Padma Kant Shukla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been edited almost exclusively single-purpose IP's and is likely an autobiography. In 2010 it was tagged for issues including begin written like a resumé and lacking independent sources. I'm not sure if contacting the editors would help because the IP's are constantly changing. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

A. Raja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In biography of A.Raja, the section "2G Spectrum scandal" & "the Box" contains potentially libellous, such material is repeatedly inserted, it violates the BLP policies,

• It's written in news style; of first-hand news reports on breaking stories; INCLUDED routine news reporting on things; breaking news are emphasized; these sources lead to overdetailed articles that look like a diary.

• not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion; Timely news subjects not suitable and therefore "is significantly NOT enough to be included in the biography of a person". Overall the sources and sentences are 'negative in tone', ' they appear to have been created to disparage the subject' & Materials clearly not added in good faith.

Editors The Discoverer & Anbu121 are repetadly inserting the materials, even after mentioning the violation of rules

1. WP:NOT#NEWS
2. WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER
3. WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS
4. WP:NOTDIARY
5. WP:NOTWHOSWHO.

There is s seperate "2G spectrum section" , but still, the informations inserted are in excess than actual Biography, to Malign the person. Keep an eye on the Editors & Please give protection status to this article. Thistorian (talk) 17:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

After several talks and summarisation of article, editor Anbu121 is repeatedly inserting potentially libellous texts, This is vandalism,please take action.Thistorian (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like the content he is inserting is well sourced, and you have not really addressed that on the article talk page. There does not appear to be a BLP issue here. Continue to use the talk page to try to reach some sort of compromise. - MrOllie (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I am so pleased by your reasons, great, i understood your judgement, I am not going to talk for any sort of compromise, Thank you 121.200.49.130 (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC) Thistorian (talk) 10:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

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

There's some talk page activity here that could use some oversight o someone with experience in this area. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I had a look and commented - then decided to just archive and NOINDEX it to keep crawler bots away from it - , " archive all long term historic and recent opinionated screed and large copy paste in french" - I notified User:Euroflux of this report - Youreallycan 19:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Euroflux also copy/pasted the same diatribe to another editor's talk page. See his contributions for details. First Light (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Everybody agrees on the fact that this biography does not meet WP:BIO requirements. Already 3 requests for deletion on the English WP + one on the French WP. Often, the debate is avoided in a very tricky way... People hide behind fake procedures to shun the debate... They may even be threatening using the weapon of "personal attack"... There is a subtle confusion organized between WikiPedia and WikiMedia... Everybody knows Wikipedia ; nobody knows WikiMedia. WikiMedia is - as far as I understood - the kind of money making section for a non money making organisation... d was kind of "commercial" director for a non "commercial" organization, which is a huge oxymoron !...

Florence Devouard claims to be an agronomist but she never had - according to her own declarations - a proper job in this field. Agronomy did not make her "notable".

She never achieved anything particular as an internet professional either. She was elected Chairperson of Wikimedia Foundation, but what does it mean ? Wikimedia is not in itself a notable body ; it is just a "spin off" of the notable organization Wikipedia. d boasts about having succeeded Jimbo Wales as a Chairperson of Wikimedia Foundation. Jimbo Wales is obviously notable as the creator of Wikipedia, and many other organizations and bodies, but succeeding Jimbo Wales at the Head of one of the numerous bodies created by him is not enough to make you a "notable" person ! Jimbo Wales could not out of deontological reasons be the one making money for the non money making notable organization Wikipedia he created. That is why he nominated a rather anonymous person at the Head of this rather unclear organization. d became the Head during 2 years of a rather unclear organization... What were her responsabilities in the whole Wikipedia system ? Rather unclear ! And above all, what did she achieve ? Was she successful in the tasks allotted to her ? All the more unclear ! d claims to have "founded" Wikimedia France. What is exactly Wikimedia France ? Does this organization deserve a page on Wikipedia ? Not even on the French Wikipedia... Wikimedia France is nothing more than the local chapter of an unknown organization, and d was AMONG the founders, and never headed this local chapter ! There was a big decision at the General assembly to decide whether d could be reimbursed for her travel expenses... Today d is "vice president" of Wikimedia France ; she is not even a member of the "Board of Trustees" of the Wikimedia Foundation ; she is nothing more than an "advisor".

To sum it up, d did not achieve anything particular in agronomy, the field in which she claims to be a "professional", nor in the internet business, a field in which she claims to be "nothing but a volunteer".

Her insisting on the French Talk Page that her quality of "conseiller municipal" (village counsellor) should be mentioned on her biography does not plead for the greatness of her professional or "wikipedian" achievements. In addition, this procedure is not ethical.

The demonstration of the notability was made with more than dubious indirect reasonings... "She must be famous since she "succeeded" Jimbo Wales at the Head of one of the innumerable organizations created by him" or even better : "There is no reason why d should not have her biography on WP since Angela Breesley has her own !" or "You can find even worse biographies".... Such reasonings are obviously unacceptable...

To sum it up, it is ridiculous and unethical to force the status quo about this biography. This would be an unacceptable double standard policy. It took me 5 weeks to demonstrate on the English Wikipedia, that Jean-Paul Herteman, who can be considered N°1 in French Aerospace Industry, and even the Chairman of the European Aerospace Industries Association, was notable enough to deserve his own biography ! Euroflux (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no double standard. If you think she is not notable, you can take this to AfD (as somebody else already told you, too) and see whether you can convince the community. Your arguments will have to be based on policy (see WP:GNG and WP:BIO). What you cannot do is keep posting diatribes here or on the article's talk page making unfounded accusations. As for her being an agronomist and municipal counselor, obviously that doesn't make her notable. But if she is notable or other reasons, then putting this information in a biography is completely legitimate. People don't get notable for being married or having children, but if they are notable for other reasons, we put that info in their bios, too. So stop fixating on details and try to determine whether there are enough reliable sources on her to meet our notability guidelines. If the answer is "yes", fine, end of discussion. If the answer is "no", fine, too: go to AfD, that is where you discuss notability or lack thereof, not here or on the talk page or on other users' talkpages. Please stop wasting your and our time by posting these long diatribes all over the place. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I added the banner

This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject. It may need editing to conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. There may be relevant discussion on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

and this banner was immediately removed by User:Arjayay. Yourself you threatened me saying that I was doing a personal attack. It is you who forced me to make this long demonstration ; you are very dishonest. You say one thing and its contrary. I added the banner

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.Find sources: "Archive163" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (Learn how and when to remove this message)

and it was removed at once by Arjayay. He threatened me writing STOP and WP:SHOPPING. I did not write a long diatribe ; I wrote a long justification because of your threat. The main argument why d's bio was kept was "Angela Breesley has her bio ; therefore there is no reason why d should not have her own bio !". I added a banner AfD on Angela's bio, and it was removed ! Your attitude consists in hiding behind procedures and you talk as if you were endowed with a special power. Who entitled you to say "our" ? Stop saying at the same time one thing and its contrary. Who entitles you to forbid me to write to other users' talk pages ? Who do you think you are ? Who entitled you to say what should be done and what should not ? Euroflux (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You continue only to hear what you want. You continue to respond to advice with personal attacks. As you had calmed down a bit in the past few days, I did not yet prepare a report for ANI, hoping you were seeing clearer how wedo things here in our project. Unfortunately, this is the last drop and I'll now proceed with taking you and your disruptive behavior to ANI. Enough is enough. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Silvio Berlusconi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some editors are objecting to the addition of categories such as "Italian tax evader" to this article, despite Berlusconi's having been convicted by an Italian court of this crime. Hard to see how it can be a problem -- but since I have no intention of getting into an edit war I'd prefer to see what other BLP regulars have to say. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud. Ten minutes after he's convicted and you need to tag and bag him. No, it isn't a BLP violation, but it is just amazingly lame to make an issue of this. Categories like this are of marginal benefit at best - the instance on putting negative ones on people the minute the BLP policy will let you do it is just unbelievable crass.--Scott Mac 19:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Your comments on BLP policy are much appreciated. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"?--Scott Mac 20:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose these POV cats - Nomoskedasticity and PatGallacher seem to be unwilling to get the point that "Berlusconi's having been convicted by an Italian court" does not equate with guilt in the Italian legal system as mentioned in the sources for the article. T. trichiura Infect me 21:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

  Enough WP:VAGUEWAVEing. Please produce the reference which you believe supports your view. I have read all the relevant refs, and can find nothing to support the bizarre claim that "Berlusconi's having been convicted by an Italian court does not equate with guilt in the Italian legal system". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nomoskedasticity, I think people are making a big deal about technical details of the Italian legal system. One of Wikipedia's strengths is that it can deal with these issues very quickly. Tommy Sheridan's biography was suitably updated within minutes of his conviction, nobody objected. We have dozens of categories for people with criminal convictions, do we delete all of them? PatGallacher (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely no logic that says, "we have to tag and bag everyone as soon as we can, just because we can justify it under the letter of the BLP policy, because if we don't we'd have to delete all the categories". That's ludicrous. Sure, technically he's convicted - there's also every chance he's appeal successfully. So can we categorise him now? Technically, yes. Do we have to? No, there's no pressing reason so say we can't wait. If someone objects, don't jump up and down - let it go for a bit.--Scott Mac 21:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Tommy Sheridan argument you've repeatedly put forward is irrelevant since it didn't take place in Italy. Italian law is not anglo law, and according to Italian law the tag is simply inaccurate, as he's presumed innocent while appeals take place (this is mentioned in the references cited in the damn article too). You might make a "big deal" out of "technicalities" in a legal system if it was the difference between your own presumed guilt or innocence. I also don't know why this was brought here since the article's talk page was serving well enough as a forum for this discussion. T. trichiura Infect me 21:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I have understood - in Italy you are not convicted until the end of your appeals - he got four years in jail - but he is not in jail is he. Add content forget cats - they are valueless with notable people - everyone knows how to find them and no one/almost no one at all comes via a cat page to such a person. - Youreallycan 21:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

So far as I can see from the references, he has indeed been convicted. The BBC is explicit about it: Mr Berlusconi is not the first Italian prime minister to be convicted of a crime. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I too would agree that he's convicted. I'm really not sure why this seems like such a big deal, in our system we have a first degree trial plus two appeals (+side appeals and retrials). Berlusconi himself has been found guilty in first degree trials for various things 4 times in the past already. The judgement is not final until appeals are exhausted, that's true and the confirmation of the sentence is far from a given but all of this is immaterial. See Corriere della Sera's homepage - Italy's main newspaper opening with "Tax fraud, Berlusconi condamned - The former premier: "Barbaries"". The fact that the sentence will not be effective pending appeal for the jail portion (not sure about the interdiction from public offices) and that it's likely it won't stick have nothing to do with this. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If it helps, Berlusconi's brother's newspaper (and one of the top 5 in Italy iirc) is too referring to Berlusconi having been condamned, [41]. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Cats are of incredibly low value - particularly low level ones like "Italian tax evader". If there's even a 5% doubt as to accuracy, leave them out, just narrate facts in the article. This is particularly on a BLP. And particularly when the events are so recent. What's the damn hurry. --Scott Mac 21:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Editors may have differing views about the merits or otherwise of the category system, but those discussions belong elsewhere. WE have a category system, and so long as it exists the decision here is simply whether to categorise Berlusconi as a convicted tax evader.
  I have read all the references in the article, and see nothing to support the bizarre assertion that in Italy a conviction is not a conviction. Belusconi should be categorised under Category:Italian tax evaders and Category:Italian politicians convicted of crimes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• • The subject has four years imprisonment but he is not in jail is he - in Italy he has appeal and is not officially convicted until those are over - Youreallycan 22:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I have posted on the article's talk page 3 refs to reliable sources, which confirm that he has been convicted: NYTimes, BBC , Guardian.
      Those refs also say that the sentence will not be implemented unless upheld on appeal ... but they are quite clear that he has been convicted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • BrownHairedGirl, that's the same fallacy again. "We've got this system, so we have to use it always and every way" - or "if you don't like this one instance, you need to propose deleting the whole system." No, that's false. We have a cat system, it is somewhat useful to our readers - but it isn't critical - and has its weaknesses. Wikipedia will not blow up if we don't push the category it to its logical conclusion immediately in each case. If there's any doubt, even a little, even a question, leave it off. If there's a new situation and the sources are just coming in (as here), you can wait a bit (even a few months) and see what happens. The article will still be there, no facts will be excluded. Again, whats the hurry.--Scott Mac 22:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I have no prob with a wait-for-more-sources argument. I don't agree with it, because the sources are here already, but it's a perfectly reasonable argument.
      However, arguments about the merits of the category system are a red herring. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Exactly.--Scott Mac 22:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the same problem we had, a couple of years ago on Murder of Meredith Kercher, because in Italy, under our rather byzantine legal system, a person is presumed innocent until his conviction has become definitiva (final). A conviction only becomes final when it can no longer be appealed, either because there is no superior court competent to hear the appeal or because the deadline to file an appeal has expired. This means that a conviction by a court of first instance, if appealed, has no effect on the defendant's presumption of innocence.

Con la presunzione di non colpevolezza dell'imputato (o, meglio, il divieto di presumere colpevole l'imputato) sino a che sia divenuta definitiva la sentenza di condanna, la norma constituzionale impedisce di anticipare la punizione rispetto alla conclusione del processo, perché questo significherebbe trattare da reo un imputato la cui colpevolezza, per quanto magari già riconosciuta al termine di un grado di giudizio, non è stata dichiarata in termini conclusivi e potrebbe dunque ancora essere negata.^[6]

While I think we certainly ought to include the fact that Berlusconi was found guilty of tax evasion by a court of first instance, as this is an easily provable historical fact, I don't think he should be categorised as a tax evader just yet. And I also think that the article should probably clarify that, in Italy, he's still technically presumed innocent...

Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

There's clearly more to it than that -- as is clear from the fact that he has been sentenced to prison. Now, sure, he isn't actually in prison -- in part because his government passed laws that would make it unlikely that offenders like him would go to prison. But Murder of Meredith Kercher shows quite clearly that people can be and are sent to prison after a conviction of this sort. We have to write our article from a general perspective and not give excessive weight to peculiarities of the Italian legal system. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Bollocks. We have to give careful attention to the peculiarities of the Italian legal system and stop assuming a US/UK wrongheaded interpretation of what it is all about. Now, read the Kercher article you have cited "if convicted the individual is referred to as defendant or accused (imputato), and is not considered guilty until convicted at the trial of the second grade (secondo grado).[43][44] During this time, the defendant is either allowed to go free pending the final verdict, or is held in cautionary detention". This is obviously complicated (I don't claim to understand it) so we need to get it right - and not get prissy about categorising people.--Scott Mac 16:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Amanda was remanded in custody before the trial began, she was not gaoled as a consequence of her conviction. That said, if the statute of limitations were to expire before Berlusconi's conviction became final — which, by the way, is quite probable, knowing the Italian legal system... —, he'd still be considered innocent and his criminal record would still be clean... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

In addition to giving due weight to the peculiarities of the Italian legal system, we have to write our article from a general perspective, using the sources at our disposal. Those sources tell that he has been convicted of tax evasion and sentenced to prison -- and that he remains free pending appeal. I have no problem with indicating what sources say about an on-going presumption of innocence. But the main message in the sources is that he has been convicted of tax evasion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had said the same thing... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm delighted that we agree. Except that, for me, "main message in the sources is that he has been convicted of tax evasion" supports the conclusion that "Category:Italian tax evaders" is appropriate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You've just ignored the point and asserted your non-Italian based understanding of what a conviction means over all the evidence supplied. What's evident is that convicted=guilty in US and UK thinking, but it's more nuanced in Italian jurisprudence. So saying "for me" the one (convicted) supports the other (is factually guilty) conclusion is totally invalid - you are not an authority on Italian jurisprudence, so your equating of the two is irrelevant. In any case, we can narrate the nuances of this in the article (as the Kercher one you pointed to already does) - categories are harder to nuance so best leaving that for now. In any case, while getting the test right is important, rushing to stick a cat on the article is not. So, let it be.--Scott Mac 21:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't ignore anything -- I have only indicated that I come to a different conclusion on the approach Wikipedia editors should take. As for "non-Italian" -- well, yes, I am not Italian, and I continue to believe that we should not edit this article from an "Italian" point of view. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The question is "what is the significance and meaning of a conviction in an Italian court". The ONLY way to judge that is to read it in the context of Italian jurisprudence. That's not an Italian "point of view" that's simply a fact. What conclusion you personally come to on the meaning of an Italian conviction is irrelevant and has utterly no place on Wikipedia. If you come across something emanating from the UK, which says "children were using rubbers at school", you must read that in accordance with a UK understanding of the meaning of "rubber" (which means eraser). If you conclude it means condoms were in use, you are simply wrong. That's not asking you to "edit from a UK point of view" it is asking you to interpret a UK statement in UK terms. Similarly, the only way to understand a pronouncement of an Italian court is to ask what Italian courts mean and don't mean by their statement. That's reading in context, it has nothing whatsoever to do with imposing an Italian point of view.--Scott Mac 21:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It ought to be obvious enough that when an Italian court convicts someone of tax evasion it means they think he has evaded the legal requirement to pay taxes and is thus a(n Italian) tax evader. Or perhaps you think they are saying he is not a tax evader? I really don't think I'm the one that's having trouble reading in context. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You're being obtuse. The court is saying he's guilty. However, the system appears to treat him as innocent, and that verdict as provisional, until the appeals are over. We need to read the utterances of one part of a legal system in the context of a whole. Otherwise, coming from a country (the UK) where the view of a jury is final, I might view an indictment of a US Grand Jury as reason to assign guilt, whereas the US system is different, and I need to take care to understand it. At any level there's some doubt as to what this means, so narrate the facts, don't over interpret by using binary categorisation.--Scott Mac 22:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I've read this discussion, and I agree with Scott's points. First, we should err on the side of not including this kind of category. Second, we should look at the result in Italy from the perspective of their legal system. To the extent that we are unsure as to how that system works, that only reinforces the first point.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose categories If the categories said Italians convicted of such and such, then the arguments based on the fact that he's been convicted would be fairly convincing. But they don't say that. They say tax evaders and fraudsters. The conviction per se does not prove that he is either of those, especially given that he retains the presumption of innocence. --Trovatore (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The categories themselves are problematic BLP issue magnets and should be convened as Trovatore suggests Italians convicted of such and such -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose categories. I am Italian, so I feel I can comment. Also, I am no fan at all of Berlusconi, and me and ScottMac had our sour disagreements in the past. But Scott is absolutely right in his understanding of how the Italian system works. Any first-degree conviction can easily be overturned in appeal, and for all practical purposes he is still not guilty. If he waives his right to an appeal or the appeal finds him guilty too, then we can revisit the issue, but for now it's a big no-no. As Trovatore says: a cat "Italians convicted of such and such" may be OK, but "Italian tax evaders" is not at all here. --Cyclopia^talk 05:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

References

The articles where the BLP concerns have occurred are:

• Elder Paisios of Mount Athos‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and its spoof:
• Elder Pastitsios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The issue is that the creator of the facebook page described in the article of Elder Pastitsios has been arrested in Greece. An editor keeps adding his name in both articles: Elder Paisios of Mount Athos and Elder Pastitsios

Two other editors disagree with the insertion of the name of the arrested individual on these two articles citing BLP concerns but a single editor keeps edit-warring adding it in. Any advice would be welcome. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Being arrested for blasphemy is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard of, but I don't know why the person's name shouldn't be included in the articles if reliably sourced. --Onorem♠Dil 17:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:BLPCRIME. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not commenting on the intelligence of the matter or of the police actions. As far as my experience with BLPs goes, the names of recently arrested people are withheld for the articles per WP:NOTNEWS, recentism and BLP. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

And thank you Nomoskedasticity for nailing the exact section. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, BLP says it clearly, non sourced or undersurced links. I have provided linsk of mainstream media, plus links to of his televised interview where he (by himself) states his name, all i do is cite the source.

Sources have been deleted (!) and only greek police memo have been kept. msymeonakis (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

More on it i'd like to add that i have found the name at the elder Pastitsios and from there copied at the controversy page... i re-edited it to PASTItsios only for reason to save it from whot it seemed whas mass deletion (i repeat, mainstream links have been deleted!!!) pls check. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msymeonakis (talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC) msymeonakis (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Your editing is disruptive, and your understanding of WP:BLP is flawed. I would recommend staying away from the articles, or you may end up being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

As I see, WP:NOTNEWS aplies here since the arrest is recent. Moreover, even if the site creator gave up and admitted that he did this, there are still serious WP:BLP restrictions. Also, in Elder Paisios article a detailed section about a recent facebook site is also WP:UNDO.Alexikoua (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The arrest happened a month ago the individual is fred... pending trial, citing mainstream media i attempted to give the zeitgheist not of a "facebook page" but on an incident of international resonace on greek media freedom .Links have been provided and deleted, i have not heard nothing on them Bbb23... thank you. Oh... i have asked for collaboration 2 times...msymeonakis (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Bbb23. As far as the so-called deletion, I was just trimming probable synthesis and original research as I explained on the article talk. However this is the place only for discussing the individual BLP concerns and not other content. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually not, Undo's where not only ment to keep the name of the arrested in place, but also to save links from deletion (Kathimerin link deleted has a joint edition with International Herald Tribune why this link should be deleted??), On synthesis and original research i'll only ad that the Controversy was bulid trimming part of the Pastitsios article and adding links, i'd like to understand why is synthesis in my case and not on elder Pastitsios made from some other editor? Every where i even added links i got the "POV", even to existen articles!!!, just check history...msymeonakis (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

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

The following claim and it's citation found in the "Criticism" section for Andrea Bocelli is clearly false:

"Most of these critics resigned their jobs after listening to Andrea Bocelli at Central Park, New York. Many of these critics apologized to the public for making such a blunder."

The citation 185 for this claim links to A Critique of Socrates Guilt in the Apology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.212.238 (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Missourced statement removed [42] --Cyclopia^talk 22:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

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

The personal life section of Bruce Vilanch's page has been replaced with a South Park reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.166.154 (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Vandalism removed. Shearonink (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

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

No citations on some of the posts : violates the biography of a living person and libels the person. Victor Yanuchynko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scousepott (talk • contribs) 03:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

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

The side panel that usually contains a picture of the subject and their full name has been replaced with a link to this and a series of disturbing images. The caption under these images reads: GENOCIDIST. I'm pretty such that qualifies as slanderous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.121.92 (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism - fixed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think this article is somewhat problematic in general--the subject appears to be a controversial figure. In particular, I would appreciate some outside review of the revisions starting with the one by 林木森森 on 9 October. The quotes are basically true, in that similar language is used in the cited essays, but I think we need to write more conservatively. (See the editor's talk page for discussion on the matter.) Since there has already been some back-and-forth on this, I am looking for outside opinion on whether the text presents a BLP issue, or if I'm being overcautious. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thomasettaei has reverted it to my revision. wctaiwan (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

At the moment, Wiki has any searches for Denny Randell redirecting to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denny_Randell, which is a Wiki dedicated to the songwriting efforts of Denny Randell and Sandy Linzer (even though the URL only has Randell's name). That article has errors in regards to Linzer's involvement with Randell. Would it be best to write a new article only about Denny Randell at the home page where the "Denny Randell" search gets redirected from (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Denny_Randell&redirect=no) or would it be best to just write a new page? Thanks! Tartandtangy (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

If they are notable individually, they should have their own bios it would seem. Also, feel free to make changes and use the article talk page. --Malerooster (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Coincidentally (as I'm passing through this page, not one I regularly visit) I have edited on the Linzer and Randall page as well, and agree that there should be separate articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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

At Derek McCulloch, there is an editor claiming to be his grandson who insists on removing referenced information on the basis that "...this has caused great distress and upset to the family, especially my elderly Mother and Aunt..." The information relates to claims of child sexual abuse, by someone who died 45 years ago. Is this covered by the reference at WP:BDP that "material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends.... is covered by this policy" - and hence should it be discussed here? Or, is there a better noticeboard? I'm conscious of the need to give appropriate advice to the grandson. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to discuss the question under that part of BDP. But I think it would be highly inappropriate to remove it on that basis. Imagine if the family of Jimmy Savile made that sort of request... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The sourcing strictly states that this is rumour and allegation - and as such it requires stronger sourcing than was provided. I also removed material which appears based on his own telling of stories to others - as that also is basically SPS as a result (being shot in the head, etc.). Again, stronger RS sourcing would be needed. Collect (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I suggest taking your concerns to WP:RSN. I see nothing at all amiss with sources like the LRB and have restored that paragraph. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The sources support stating that O'Hagan says McC was "Uncle Dick" in a book -- but the rumours from O'Hagan are not fact but his opinion at best - thus the claims about rumours do not belong. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The allegations are also set out here - "News veteran John Simpson has claimed that the BBC gagged him when he tried to expose the behaviour of an unnamed children's radio presenter who fits the profile of corporation legend Derek McCulloch." Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is just O'Hagan's opinion. O'Hagan explicitly says " Of the three men named to me as I talked to people about the BBC in those days, Uncle Mac is the one who stirs the strongest emotions." That's a bit stronger than being just O'Hagan's opinion. Hiding T 15:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Not only that -- we have the Independent: 'Children's Hour presenter Derek McCulloch – known to children as "Uncle Mac" – is accused of similar abuse and regularly taking children "to the gents to interfere with them". O'Hagan says parents' complaints were waved away as fiction by the office of the director general whose letters said: "The nation wouldn't understand such an accusation against a much-loved figure."' [43] Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

That's the Independent reporting O'Hagan who is reporting Simpson, who is reporting a conversation he had in 1967. Simpson is the sole source at the moment. (I don't think Simpson would have published this in 1999 unless it was widely rumoured within the BBC, but he didn't actually say that, so that's just my speculation.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so the Independent thinks there's enough credence in the reports to give them coverage. Works for me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Just to point out I have already got an open thread on this article at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Derek McCulloch. I'm sure there's no forum shopping, but it's best that we are all aware that we're on the same page in this debate. I'd also point out that we have a source that reports the BBC confirming that the allegations will be investigated. On that basis I support inclusion of the material in the article. Hiding T 15:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• The subject has been dead for over 40 years, and these allegations are now very widely known and being investigated by the BBC. Our article would look odd if we were to leave them out. Having said that, if you read O'Hagan he doesn't actually confirm anything (not even the existence of additional rumours), so the sole source remains Simpson and the discussion he had with the woman in 1967. I edited the section to make that clear. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Responded to the sole source issue at the talk page. Agree with regards it being odd leaving it out. Hiding T 17:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Betsy Butler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ms. Butler and her supporters have repeatedly added content to this page which violates NPOV. They've added a section on AB 1319 which is extremely biased and comes directly from her campaign literature. The article is protected in its current state, which I believe is an error. Please remove the offending section and resume protection of the page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Freelance Police (talk • contribs) 11:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The current version does not contain anything that violates NPOV, in my view; the article is also semi-protected, so I don't think the editors in question will be re-adding anything for a bit. I've requested a proper reference for the short passage that remains. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I fully expect her campaign staff will make further edits once they get their hands on an auto-approved account, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Thanks for your help. The Freelance Police (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Gosh - no cites to speak of and a lengthy list of every committee she has been on ... reduced PUFF a tad. Collect (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Tsai Chin (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editor User:Tsai chin real, claiming to be the subject, has been messing with the article for some time, after we declined to comply with the demand at this board, "This article is about me and I did not create any of it. I want to remove the article and start over. Please help me do so."

Now, somebody using the account has edited the account's talk page, claiming to be somebody else who is taking over and doing edits for Tsai Chin herself since she has not been doing a good job of understanding how we work. I have reluctantly blocked the account, since it has apparently been compromised beyond repair. I really, really want to WP:AGF and all that, but if this is (or was) the subject, she's not getting anywhere, and was refusing to fool around with things like OTRS. Could some other folks lend a hand? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Under the Sophomore college season section of Felix Jones biography, there is a sentence that reads, "With Jones alongside McFadden and Peyton Hillis, 1098 was the first time in University of Arkansas history that two different running backs rushed for more than 1,000 yards in the same season." The issue I am raising is the, "1098", part of the article. I do not understand what the article means when it says, "1098 was the first time in University of Arkansas history..." I am wondering if that should be a date or a statistical number or something else. This is my only concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.31.209 (talk) 02:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

This biography does not meet WP:BIO requirements. Request for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankiz.here (talk • contribs) 10:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing the article, I have proposed its deletion. wctaiwan (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Could I ask for some extra eyeballs at Stephen Snoddy? In particular, I'm concerned that ((COI)) is being used as what its documentation describes as an inappropriate "badge of shame", rather than because there are CoI issues waiting to be addressed. The matter - and some reasonable concerns over sourcing - is also discussed on its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits

I disagree that COI is being used on Stephen Snoddy's article as a "badge of shame". As it says, COI applies where A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject, which is clearly the case here. Picstloup (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)picstloup

The current article is a mess. Stubify, start again from scratch. Keep it short with a few valid refs. Hohenloh ⁺ 13:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree, it needs a cull of most of the prose. Just starting with the unsourced/badly sourced stuff would take it down to a stub - but to be honest, would whats left make them notable at all? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

As noted on its talk page (Meta: should we not have this discussion there?), the article's references now include the BBC, the Observer, Daily Telegraph, the Newcastle Journal, the Museums Journal, and the Express and Star. More recently, also the British Journal of photography. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

As I've noted on the talk page, the template documentation says "this is not a badge of shame. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies". The only such issue raised is that of referencing, which is adequately addressed by other templates both headline and in-line. What purpose, other than probably embarrassing the subject, does the template - which you (Pictsoup) both added and recently reinstated - serve, in this instance? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)