Talk:Whitey Bulger

Over-reliant on Weeks' book (NPOV)

As a former associate of Bulger, Kevin Weeks is not a neutral source. His book is certainly a useful as primary source material but its account should not be taken on its face. For example, the section about Howie Carr is essentially a distillation of Weeks' reflections on the journalist and mentions nothing about Carr's two popular press books related to Bulger. I don't have this text on hand but it might provide a good starting place for correcting some of the NPOV issues in this article. --Driscoll (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirect

Added a redirect from a stubby duplicate version of this article called "James J. Whitey Bulger". Fuzzform 19:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone

Using names such as Stevie and Jimmy makes this read more like a tabloid newspaper than an encyclopedia. "Deebra"? Please spell the McGonagle's names correctly. Dubhdara 05:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Some of the things on this page reads like a novel. It may be based on facts but its reliability may not be. They should rebuild the page.

Not verified

Need to cite sources. Are any of these people still living at the address on East Third Street? Is there a good reason to list it if someone else lives there? Dubhdara 05:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Craigslist

Found this posting on Craigslist, asking for help tracking him down. I suppose this information is useful or at least interesting.

Bisexuality

I notice that his bisexualism seems to be removed from the article everytime it is explicitly stated. I think it is a valid and appropriate fact that is sourced in various materials The Brothers Bulger by Howie Carr being the latest. What is going on? Dwain

Because you insist on replacing other text and labeling him bisexual without any references to verify it. IrishGuy ^talk 03:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's in plenty of sources, Carr's book being just the latest. Kester Teague 15:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I am more inclined to believe Kevin Weeks' insistance that Bulger was straight as a nail. Weeks was far closer to Bulger and knew him much better than Howie Carr or Eddie MacKenzie who paint him as a predatory bisexual. [User:kingstowngalway]

He wasn't bisexual and that fat ass liar and dickhead howie carr would know shit about Whitey. Take Weeks' word for it, instead of that fat ass carr.

No, don't take anyone's word for it. Cite your sources, make sure they're verifiable and adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies of living persons. And refrain from the profanity because you happen to be challenged on a point of fact. —Cantabwarrior (talk • contribs) 03:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Libellous information

I have removed a lot of unverified information here which, if untrue, would be libellous. If anyone verifies what i removed, please revert the page back. Jonomacdrones 20:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Urban legends

I don't understand why this section is named "Urban Legends." Many of these stories, including the lottery ticket extortion are pretty well sourced. To call them Urban Legends suggests that reasonable people doubt them, or that they're flat out false, and they're neither. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.106.65 (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It only took 3 years, but I removed the inappropriate 'Urban Legends' title, replaced and altered the explanation to agree w/ the new heading. Left material intact. Also removed informal, inappropriate language and ethnic attributions. Tapered (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Tagged for Neutral Point of View

This article is a train wreck when it comes to maintaining encyclopedic neutrality. It's practically a textbook case of how not to write an article for an encyclopedia. I hate Whitey, I hate Billy too, but look, phrases such as "ruled with an iron fist", "whatever the truth", "Irish Godfather", "in spite of his ruthless nature", and so forth have no business being in a reference source. I've also tagged it for tone. Cantabwarrior 00:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• “Irish Godfather” sounds appropriate given the nearly-mythic perception people in Southie had of him.69.29.93.242 05:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• We're not trying to write near-mythology, we're trying to write a biography of a living person. Stick to the facts. — Cantabwarrior (talk • contribs) 03:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

I kind of wonder if he's really the Irish Godfather because I know his great niece and she's told me that he's on Interpol but all this is starting to get really confusing.68.192.68.84 (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to fix a slight glitch I've found

I notice that most times this article references the "FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives", it drops the final 's' and becomes "FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitive". I'm going to edit it now. Hold on a second...
138.243.129.4 16:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Mullen Gang

If anyone has any info. on the mullen gang or members etc, please make a page or message me, thank you.

LSD (+) Bulger at Alcatraz

It would be worth mentioning, as an interesting side note, that Whitey bulger was part of LSD experiments in prison n order to get an early release.

Character in The Departed

Frank Costello, played by Jack Nicholson, is based on Infernal_Affairs's character Hon Sam, unless there's references saying Hon Sam is based on Bulger, it should not be here Z3u2 22:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The special features commentary on The Departed DVD says that Costello wasn't based strictly on Bulger, but does have roots in him and his story. 12.107.247.166 20:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted TfD

{{Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted}} has been nominated for deletion. As this template is transcluded here, contributors to the "James J. Bulger" article may want comment in the discussion here. I propose that if the template is deleted, then most transclusions would be changed to {{Infobox Criminal}}. -- Mark Chovain 01:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 12:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ranked in the 10 most wanted

According to FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives (particularly the talk page) the 10 most wanted list is not ranked, if this is correct then the media source which states that Bulger is ranked 2nd has made an incorrect assumption or misunderstanding? SGGH ^speak! 23:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Update on the (now false proven) Sicily sighting

I've updated the part about the (now false proven) Sicily sighting. Could someone please correct the format of my footnotes, if necessary? My work is usually focused on the German and French Wikipedia, so I'm not entirely sure about how footnotes are formatted here on en.… . – Thanks a lot! --Le petit prince (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

No such thing as "Drug Enforcement Agency"

I changed the text to reflect the actual name of the agency - Drug Enforcement Administration.--Legomancer (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Whitey DID sell heroin

Lehr/O'Neill's "Black Mass" dispels the claim that heroin was never sold in Southie as a myth promulgated by Whitey's surrogates, characterizing him as the highest man in New England's heroin trade. Michael MacDonalds "All Souls" corroborates Lehr/O'Neill and says that Whitey and his gang were responsible for a heroin epidemic that plagued Southie in the 80s. These two sources should at the very least be mentione, especially since Weeks' contradictory claim is mentioned in the "Drug Trade" section. 24.215.231.0 (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Whitey and History Channel

The reference to History Channel must be false as this channel started in 1995, while Bulger already on the lam. As I don't think he made any confidence about his tastes on television since this date, this is not true news

Alex Bulger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.129.39.93 (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

James J. Bulger accusations

"Born and raised in the predominantly Irish-Catholic projects of South Boston, Bulger was involved in serious crimes at an early age..."

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/feb09/bulger_021109.html -source

Has anyone got any more information on this? (C_falco (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

"Involved in" is not necessarily the same as "committed". We are required to adhere to WP:BLP, so I have edited the above comments. The article does not accuse him of that particular crime, so we should not have it here unless it appears elsewhere in a reliable source.  Frank  |  talk  12:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Use of Black Mass as a source

I removed some opinionated commentary that ostensibly was attributed to Black Mass, yet the contributor never explicitly identified the opinion as that of that book's authors. The information was conveyed in a speculative tone, which seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia article.

I was not logged in when making these edits (sorry!). Shariabrams (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

MK-ULTRA took place in Laevenworth Prison, not in Atlanta, according to this source

According to this article [1] the MK-ULTRA experiments in which mr. James Bulger cooperated took place in Laevenworth Prison, Kansas. That would be the third prison he visited in 1956-1965, not the first as stated in the Wiki text.

When Alcatraz was shut down in 1963, Bulger was sent to Leavenworth Prison in Kansas, where he volunteered to take LSD as part of a CIA-sponsored experiment called MK-Ultra. He was paroled in 1965 after serving nine years.

This would make sense if his participation did lead to a reduced sentence.

Also the article mentions Burgler first being put (1956) in the Federal Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. That is before Alcatraz (? - 1963). The Wiki text says he first stayed at the Atlanta Penitentiary.

He was convicted in federal court and sent to the federal penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.

--Afwas (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

New 2010 FBI ad

Resently the FBi took out an add in the Plastic Surgery News with images of Bulger's grilfriend asking for information. To be 100 honest, I'm not sure where this should be mention in this artical, if at all. I would like some suggestions.

This is what I was thinking it should say: On May 12, 2010, the FBI took out a full-page ad in the April-May edition of Plastic Surgery News with photos of Catherine Greig, Bulger's grilfriend. The newsletter which is circulated to more than 6,000 plastic surgeons worldwide was titled "Have you treated this woman?".<ref>{{Citation | last = Murphy | first = Shelley | title = FBI turns to plastic surgery newsletter in search for Bulger | date = May 12, 2010 | year = 2010 | url = http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/05/_essdras_m_suar.html | accessdate = 18 May 2010}}</ref> --ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 21:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Howie Carr

Not entirely clear why there are two separate "Howie Carr" sections. AnonMoos (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Boston Herald logo.png

The image File:Boston Herald logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Departed234.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Get rid of the "audio reading"

Is this a Saturday Night Live joke? The man can barely speak, there is a minute of mouse clicking and keyboard typing sounds at the beginning. It's like some lobotomized 10 year old's school project. But of course the main issue here isn't the fact that this person should never, under any circumstances, have ANYTHING to do with audio production of any kind, it is the fact that he has illegally included copyrighted music in his "soundtrack" and published it to the internet. Granted you can't really hear the music itself over his TYPING SOUNDS (unbelievable), but the fact remains that he is in breach of copyright law by publishing this recording to the internet. Further he declares in the copyright statement that he is the author and grants permission to share the content. Uh, you are NOT the composer, it is NOT yours to share, you have NO rights in this regard. The horrific audio quality, lack of any degree of professional level, lack of any artistic merit, utter lack of articulate speech, utter lack of any reason on Earth why this person would have made this joke of an audio recording, etc. are all singularly notable even by wikipedia's already low base standard, and should warrant this thing being deleted immediately. But the fact that it is also in violation of federal law seals the deal. I will delete at end of day if original author does not do so first.Ace Rutherfords (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Take it to Creative Commons, where the audio is hosted. All content submitted to Wikipedia is released under the CC-BY-SA license, meaning their are no legal issues. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a farce. Very end of the recording: "Read the article. It's not like Wikipedia is not a boldfaced lie, but most of this stuff is, you know, interesting." —Designate (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What licensing it has is irrelevant, I am removing this piece of amateur hour bullshit. I can't understand why anyone in their right mind would think that that thing was a benefit to the project here, any more than a stick figure drawing of the Statue of Liberty would serve on that article. Tarc (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You're all correct. I only listened to a few seconds of it, didn't realize what crap it was. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I came here for the same reason and removed it. The first minute or so is backround noise (movie?) and the reader is typing while talking...slowly.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you are all very insensitive. Despite my better judgement I have spent more time in post production. Your criticisms are counterproductive, not constructive and at times rather rude, especially since you know the person who is making the piece is obviously going to read your commentary. HowardCoward (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Howard. My comment was unnecessarily rude, and I'm sorry for hat. However, I did not know that you would read the comment. In most cases I find comments unanswered on wikipedia, so it is rather like shouting into the dark hoping to be heard, to make a point. To that end, I admit I did make a bit of a rant out of it, but with all due respect, you might have edited some of the "dead air" a bit, not typed while recording, maybe rehearsed the delivery a bit to make it more listenable. There may be some benefit to providing audio readings of articles but not if they are unlistenable. As for the the use of copyrighted music, it is simply not legal. As a composer for film and television I assure you, we take copyright law and the authorship of intellectual property very seriously, even if many people on the internet don't. There are established laws firmly in place regarding this and I am happy to share them with you, and with "Wikipedia Commons" if necessary. Ace Rutherfords (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, apology accepted on behalf of hats. It has been revised. None of the music is illegally reproduced, it's all either CCA (perhaps you are referring to that) or Public Domain and I cited the source. I don't want to get into a fair use argument, but there is one here. HowardCoward (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• For reference, here is the file in question. --causa sui (talk) 23:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Where the fuck is my revised version? HowardCoward (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

I removed [2] the following paragraph for lack of sources:

Upon returning to Boston, Bulger soon resumed his criminal activities. In 1952, he was involved in the hijacking of a liquor truck. By 1955, he had joined a crew that robbed a string of banks in Rhode Island and Indiana. In January 1956, a federal warrant was issued for his arrest. Bulger then went on the run, was arrested in March 1956 and was sentenced to 25 years in prison in June of that year.

I expect that sources will be easily found. --causa sui (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Apartment photo

I've taken photos of Bulger's Santa Monica apartment. If editors here think it would be a good idea to put it in the article, I'll upload it to Commmons and do that. Shirtwaist ^chat 03:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

They would be an excellent addition. 76.22.32.86 (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Splendid! Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 05:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

How can these photos be authenticated as being from Bulger's apartment? How did you get access to his apartment? Blackie Lstreet (talk) 07:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming he means the building, not the apartment itself. The building was all over the news so I don't expect it to be controversial. —Designate (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. I meant the outside of the building. The apartment itself, #303, is still sealed with police tape. I'd try to get photos of the inside, but getting arrested is not in my Wiki-game plan! Shirtwaist ^chat 10:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Obviously you're not as dedicated as some of us. —Designate (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Troubling lack of reliable sources

This article is missing a great many citations. Lots of allegations are being made but in many instances they are not backed up by any sources. Also, some of the sources used are questionable. For example, I would not consider Bulger's fellow hoodlums as adequate reliable sources. They could be just making some of this stuff up. They are hardly reliable. So many more sources need to be added to this article. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 07:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree and downgraded it to "C" class as well as tagging the article with {ref improve}. If assertions are not cited very soon then whole sections may start disappearing per WP:BLP. Veriss (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There's plenty sources out there (NY Times, etc) - like I said, I don't have time, but it would be great if someone could take the time to cite. Connormah (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. He's well-known by his nickname, and the proposed compromise (James "Whitey" Bulger) is needlessly verbose. -- Hadal (talk) 04:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Whitey Bulger → James J. Bulger – This page was moved from James J. Bulger to Whitey Bulger by an user who claimed that Bulger is better known by his nickname. This claim seems to be dubious and I feel that the previous title is much better than the current one. Thoughts? Karppinen (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Well... [3]. --causa sui (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - He is most definitely more well-known by his nickname. Connormah (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Move to James "Whitey" Bulger I'm not sure what the google link above is supposed to prove by itself, but glancing at some of the results it pulls up the news refer to him almost exclusively as James Whitey Bulger or James "Whitey" Bulger, and essentially never as solely Whitey Bulger. So, based on the evidence rather than personal opinion, the current title is clearly not the correct one and a move is necessary. James "Whitey" Bulger would appear to be the most suitable target, again based on the evidence. GDallimore (Talk) 19:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose it's either James Whitey Bulger or Whitey Bulger. He is better known by his nickname. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - He has always been refered to as Whitey Bulger more than his full name by the media. TBird100636 (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support move to James "Whitey" Bulger - BorisG (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Move to James "Whitey" Bulger - per GDallimore. GcSwRhIc (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose that proposal — his name is either James "Whitey" Bulger or just Whitey Bulger. Preferably the current name to keep it simple. —Designate (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
• Most readers are going to have some awareness of this person through both recent and older media accounts, which are heavily biased towards using "Whitey Bulger". As long as the first sentence makes it clear that the person's "real" name is "James J. Bulger", then the article title should remain at it's current location, per the Common name policy (ie.: Oppose).
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Alleged"

I understand the idea behind reverting my change that removed "alleged" as a prefix to crime boss, but here's the thing to remember: His title of "crime boss" is not specifically related to the current charges that he has not yet been convicted of. It is quite proper to refer to the crimes that he is currently accused of as "alleged", but these *new* charges are separate from his status as a "crime boss". He is *NOT* an "alleged" crime boss, his status as a "crime boss" is supported by fact. NOW, the crimes he is currently accused of are "alleged" - until conviction. TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. 76.22.32.86 (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. —Designate (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Where has it been established that he is a crime boss? It is only alleged at this point. He is charged with running a crime organization in violation of RICO. Until he gets convicted, it is only alleged. The use of alleged is required under BLP, until it is an established fact. Remember that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, even notorious people. BLP applies to this guy, no matter how evil he may be or is portrayed as, until he is found guilty of the charges. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

AGAIN, you are thinking of his PRESENT situation, and not taking into consideration his known and established history PRIOR to his current situation. Any argument you supply that discusses the current charges against him are IRRELEVANT. We are not talking about his current legal issues, which are at this point (if you insist) only "alleged". HOWEVER, his involvement with the Winter Hill Gang is well established. He's a former crime boss, not some grandpa who got in trouble kiting a check. Is he innocent until proven guilty of the charges that resulted in his arrest? OF *****ING* COURSE. That has exactly ZERO to do with his long time standing as a well known crime boss. And seriously, what do YOU think he is? Just some innocent grandpa mistakenly accused of 20 murders? Sure, OK - until the conviction. But conviction or no, he is a self-admitted crime boss (have you even looked into his own words on the issue? His ***BROTHER'S*** words on the issue?). I would suggest certain things about talking out of one's ass, but such conversational devices are frowned upon here at Wikipedia. As they say, "nothing to see here, move on...." Now, may I ask what your reason for objecting to applying the appropriate title to this guy is? Serious question: You think this guy is just some innocent business man being railroaded by The Govment? Really? I'm not biased, I have no dog in this race, but I ***DO*** follow the news. He's what is commonly known as a crime boss, and has admitted to it in the past. Rather than just saying it isn't so, do you have any real evidence? Background? Talking points? ANYTHING? 76.22.32.86 (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Easy. —Designate (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to provide a reliable source that says that he is a crime boss, and I don't mean Howie Carr or a thug, but a reputable source. I think you will find that reputable sources call him an alleged crime boss, not a crime boss. I don't have to prove a negative. Since you are the one calling him a crime boss you are the one who needs to come up with a reliable source that says this. I'm not saying that he is not a crime boss in my subjective opinion. I think he is. But my subjective opinion does not matter. What matters is what has been established as fact through the courts and what has been reported in reliable sources. Until it is established in some definitive way, he is only an alleged crime boss. That is the proper way to refer to him under BLP. Blackie Lstreet (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is merely one of dozens of citations to reliable sources that indicate that it is accepted that Bulger is a "crime boss". -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Nagorney, Adam and Ian Lovett. (June 23, 2011). "Whitey Bulger Is Arrested in California". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/us/23bulger.html. 

After a quick scan of the news articles online it appears that most reputable news sources consider him to be a crime boss or former crime boss. I think we can sleep well at night knowing that we did not malign this individual by falsely asserting that he is, or was, a crime boss. Veriss (talk) 07:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep. The fact that he was a crime boss is not disputed anymore than Mohamed Atta's role in 9/11 is disputed—the facts are facts, no court appearance necessary. Putting the word "alleged" contradicts the rest of the article which presents his roles as fact. "Crime boss" is hardly a legal term to begin with. —Designate (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

File:James Joseph "Whitey" Bulger Reading (Revised).ogg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:James Joseph "Whitey" Bulger Reading (Revised).ogg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

So the reason my fucking hour long recording, which took an entire day to make, was deleted was because other things were deleted? What the fuck is wrong with you people HowardCoward (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Korean War?

• Is there anything in his biographies or DD-214 to back this up? 69.143.110.86 (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

main picture

I couldn't find the relevant sentence in the policy, but shouldn't the main image be one of Bulger from his prime? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

File:James Bulger 1994.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:James Bulger 1994.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

File:James Bulger retouched.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:James Bulger retouched.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)