Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.
  • This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.
  • Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here.
  • You can request a revision deletion on IRC using #wikipedia-en-revdel connect, where only administrators will be able to see your concerns.
  • Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.
Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

"Religion:none" and "Religion:atheism"[edit]

Forgive me if this issue has been discussed before (I suspect it has but can't track down specifics), but I am having a problem with new User:SocialistDemocrat100, who is insisting on changing wording in BLP infoboxes from 'Religion: none (atheist)' - or similar - to 'Religion: Atheism'. This has arisen at Heinz Fischer, Demetris Christofias, and elsewhere. My strong view is that atheism, agnosticism, etc., are not religions, and that 'Religion: none' is the appropriate wording in such cases. "The off switch on the TV is not a different channel." If I'm right, I need help in convincing the new editor, who has not responded on his talk page and keeps making the same edits (with irritatingly inaccurate edit summaries). If I'm wrong, let me know. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I think we should leave that parameter blank rather than "none" - "none" isn't a religion either.--ukexpat (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
How some articles do it is that they put 'None (atheist) in that regard. Tutelary (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I would be delighted if the parameter were left blank. The point at issue is that the other editor is repeatedly changing 'Religion: None (atheist)' - which is OK with me - to 'Religion: Atheism' - which, to me, is patently wrong. If the consensus is that the other editor is in the wrong, I'd better take it to WP:AN/I. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Atheism is defined as denying the existence of deities, higher beings and whatnot, so you could argue that this is a religious belief of its own. "Religion: none" implies, however, that the person does not care about any sort of religion at all. So we'd better keep these two entries separated. If in doubt, leave it blank. De728631 (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
De728631 wrote "Atheism is defined as denying the existence of deities, higher beings and whatnot, so you could argue that this is a religious belief of its own." This could not be more mistaken. Atheism is not "defined as denying" anything. It is the absence or lack of belief. Every child is born an atheist since it is born lacking a belief in "deities, higher beings and whatnot"; it is not an atheist because it "denies" them. To deny something is an act of volition. No such act is necessary to lack a belief in Yahweh, Vishnu, Thor or any other claimed god. The actual definition of atheism is easily deduced from the word "theism" -- the belief in a god or gods -- and the prefix "a", which simply means "without" in ancient Greek, from whence the word comes. Occam's Shaver (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Any text in that field needs a solid source. The question is thus reduced to what does the source say? Unless there is a source, leave it empty. If the source says something that we don't think is a religion, the source wins. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. We don't get to opine that people are atheists in the absence of positive information to that effect. Mangoe (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Even if a person is an atheist, that parameter should be empty (and possibly removed per Two kinds of pork below).--ukexpat (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Like any religion - Wikipedia is best served by using self-identification in any such cases. If no such self identification is made, we well ought to use the "blank" as the default. Collect (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd go one step more and remove the field when the value is blank.Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
"Religion: Atheist" implies the person congregates with other atheists for the purpose of discussing atheism, which has a slightly different context than "Religion: none (atheist)" Kind of like in politics when someone says they're independent vs. in the American Independent Party. -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Given that there's no such thing as a reliable source for what goes on in X's head, the only meaning that can be reasonably ascribed is that of congregation or outwardly stated beliefs. To my thinking only direct statements of the "I think Z" type should suffice, but I doubt that will find consensus. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
We must do what sources tell us, but it is very unlikely that a source will tell us somebody's religion is atheism.
There may be a field in the infobox, but we don't always have to fill every field. Shabratha (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll take the words out at Heinz Fischer and elsewhere, see what happens, and report back.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
There is the slight issue that "religion: none" by itself could include non-religious theism or deism. With just "religion: none," Ben Franklin and Richard Dawkins would be classified as the same irreligion despite having completely opposite views towards religion and theism. Theism =/= religion, as evidenced by Buddhism, Jainism, and Raëlism. Atheism =/= irreligion.
Religion fields should not be incorporated unless there are good sources documenting a particular label. "I have no religion" would be "religion: none," while "I am an atheist" would indeed be "religion: atheism." "Beliefs about religion" would be a more accurate title for the field, but it's also too long for such a field. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Atheism is not a religion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
But irreligion is not inherently atheism, and atheism is not always irreligious. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Regardless, atheism is not a religion, making your earlier suggestion that "I am an atheist" would justify "religion: atheism" in the infobox incorrect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Fine, how about "Religion: none (atheist)"...? Or do you have an actual solution? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
"Religion: none" is more than sufficient. GiantSnowman 19:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
This line of arguing suggests that we should change "Religion" in the infobox to "Belief system:" or something that "atheism" would fit into, and where "none" (in which the people has specifically stated they do not hold any beliefs) would fit as well. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • We go with that the RS say, as always. GiantSnowman 19:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, per WP:CAT/R, we go by self-identification alone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
As sort of indicated above, some religions can be described as atheistic, which can complicate things here. New Atheism, Strong agnosticism; and Weak agnosticism complicates things even further. Personally, in these cases, I think it makes sense to leave it blank or "none declared" without an unambiguous declaration from the subject. John Carter (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The other, seemingly undiscussed issue is whether a subject's religion, or lack thereof, is relevant to why that person has an article. In the vast majority of cases, it's no more relevant than the colour of their eyes, and should be omitted. HiLo48 (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Its undiscussed because because that is idiotic. I am a deletionist, minimalist, but any well written bio would include mention of how a person was "raised" and religious affliations, ect. We are not saying that their religion is why they are notable unless that is the case. --Malerooster (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, for better or worse, up until the last 150 years or so, it was in many or most areas a topic related to sometimes extreme divisionsin society. And didn't end there. In Nazi Germany, Cristero War Mexico, the Soviet Union, and elsewhere, one's religius beliefs and affiliations had major impact, although, admittedly not so much in the West since WW II. John Carter (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
That's true Johne. Maybe my "vast majority" descriptor was a bit off beam. Unfortunately however, our recentism problem means that we have a huge number of articles on recent sports stars and filme and media personalities. Religion is irrelevant for most of them. In my country, Australia, religion is irrelevant for most people. And Malerooster, while religion may be part of a bio for a lot of (but certainly not all) people, where it's not a major factor in why we have an article on them, it shouldn't be in the Infobox. That's for important stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48, I would say that in 99%+ of bios, religion in NOT the reason for having an article or the reason for the subject's notability. That said, we still include it in most well written bios because it does have biographical relevance unlike eye color as the example you used, especially for, say, US Presidents. Should famous tennis players or actors have it included? I would defer to editors or writers of biograpghys. A certain editor, not to be named, has "jammed" the factoid that subjects are Jewish, into every bio of Jewish athletes. Its done in a really, awkward, no context fasion, and is quite annoying, but it continues. In those cases, I agree that it shouldn't be include, since it seems gratuitous(sp). Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm from Australia. Religion here is now a pretty low key thing for most people, even for most of the claimed 7% who attend church regularly. I understand about US Presidents. The claims of Obama being an evil Muslim even reach here. And that our present PM once trained for the Catholic priesthood does get brought up. But most Australians wouldn't be able to tell you the religions of our past several PMs. Yes, religion goes in a good biography if it was a big part of a person growing up, but rarely in the Infobox. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, specifically for some living people who aren't covered in "Who's Who"-type sources which almost always include a "religion" line I would agree with you. Unfortunately, if those generally short biographies include a 1- or 2-word religious description, it can be hard to argue we should omit something those shorter articles include. John Carter (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
P.S. In all honesty these infoboxes would be significantly more useful in many or most if the religion and ethnicity parameters did not link to the main article but to a "foo by country" article. If I were to ask the tasteless quasi-joke "Can you find a living atheist in Iran or Afghanistan" (tasteless answer - not for long) it might be much more informative to link to Atheism in Iran than the main atheism article. Such regional subarticles can also include some information on many of the characteristics included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Encyclopedic articles#Worldmark Encyclopedia of Religious Practices where such information is available. John Carter (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Clearly the solution is to remove all infoboxs from BLP's.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
It Probably is better to go with Religion: none (atheist) or Religion: Atheism. You could have no religion but Believe in a God. Religion: none does not indicate atheism well.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
There are also religions that explicity deny the existence of deities yet are still religions (even being officially recognized as such by governments), such as Scientology and Creativity. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers[edit]

As I have pointed out here, the article 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers violates WP:BLPCRIME. Nevertheless my edits to correct this ([1], [2], [3], [4]) were reverted. I even got an insult on my talkpage. It should be noted that the alledged suspects seem to be guilty before proof, and this is not questioned in the sources. This should be considered in the article. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

If the content is properly sourced, relevant and of appropriate weight, it's not precluded by WP:BLPCRIME. It's appropriate to have some content about the suspects if it is widely-reported. I see that at least some of your reverts were mandated by WP:BLP. There seem to be some new editors causing some problems so I requested page protection for the article.- MrX 11:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Absent charges, it is best practice not to give any names of "suspects" vide the Richard Jewell case. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we can afford to wait until strong sources appear for any charges. Collect (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
As to BLPCRIME, what MrX said. In the case of public figures, which these have become with all the public attention (same as with the accused Boston Marathon bombers), there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative. Epeefleche (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Given the high-profile nature of this crime, I don't think it's inappropriate to name the suspects. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Given what happened to the Palestinian teenager in Jerusalem, naming alleged suspects could be putting their life in danger. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where to post this[edit]

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

There's an interesting point being made at Talk:Cem Özdemir. There's a source that states the subject self-identifies as a "secular Muslim". The infobox indicated that this was the case. An editor claims that it ist WP:SYNTH to claim that since there is not a source that states "Ozdemir's religion is secular Islam". Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with Spiegel. Is it a reliable source? If it is that source seems to state the claim. It's not really clear however what Secular Islam is. I wonder if perhaps it means unaffiliated in this case?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Der Spiegel is one of the largest, and probably the most well-respected weekly publication in Germany. Spiegel Online, the web publication, has an Alexa rank (for most visited sites in the world) of 168 , which makes it No. 8 in Germany ( . It's both popular and reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Well then you have a source for it. The thing though that keeps kicking me personally is the Secular Islam thing. He Self Identifies by it but what is the meaning? Honestly I stick the Secular Islam part in the article and keep the infobox simply to Islam. I wonder if the synth claim comes from that? Honestly I don't see real issue with the way y'all are doing it but I personally wouldn't do it that way.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Plenty of people identify themselves as a "Secular Jew", do you know what that means? ~ I guess this is similar. Chris Fynn (talk)

Narendra Modi (2002 Gujarat riots)[edit]

Wikipedia says on the 2002 Gujarat riots page:

 The report also made mention of the BJP and Modi in "Promoting the
 attitudes of racial supremacy, racial hatred and the legacy of 
 Nazism through his government's support of school textbooks in which
 Nazism is glorified".

The "Modi" in question is Narendra Modi, the-then Chief Minister of Gujarat, and the present Prime Minister of India. So, Wikipedia is making a rather serious allegation against an important Living person. The "report" is supposedly some unnamed report of the National Human Rights Commission of India. Well, all the reports issued by the Commission regarding Gujarat can be found here,

but the quoted words are nowhere to be found.

The problem is that the material has been passed through various sources. First, there is the National Human Rights Commission, whose words were reported by the US International Religious Freedom reports in a certain way, and these words were interpreted and added to by a certain Bill presented tothe US Congress (which was never debated or passed in the House), and words from that Bill were quoted in a book by Martha Nussbaum, and the words further reinterpreted by Wikipedia editors who wrote the article. A certain amount of distortion has crept into each level of reporting, when finally what is found on Wikipedia is completely unrecognizable to the original.

I am able to correct the inaccuracies. However, the senior editors with revert rights, who watch over the Wikepedia article, are insensitive to these issues, and revert all my changes instantly. After a lengthy debateon the talk page, the User:Vanamonde93 concluded with "I have little patience left for this particular argument." I believe this is a rather callous attitude to BLP issues.

What do you suggest that I do? --- Uday Reddy (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

If the quotes text is not reference you can most definitely unquote it and reword it (of course you will need consensus to reword). --AmritasyaPutra 17:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
What is in the reference (Martha Nussbaum's book) is as follows:
 On March 15 Congressman John Conyers (Democrat from Michigan)
 submitted a House Resolution cosponsored by Congressman
 Joe Pitts (Republican from Pennsylvania) condemning the conduct of
 Modi in inciting religious persecution in Gujarat. The resolution referred
 to the condemnation in the U.S. State Department’s Religious
 Freedom Report, to the admonition of Modi by the Indian Supreme
 Court for “complacency and actions in connection with the attacks on
 non-Hindu groups,” and to the finding by India’s National Human
 Rights Commission that there was “evidence of premeditation in the
 killings of non-Hindu groups, complicity by Gujarat State government
 officials, and police inaction in the midst of attacks on Muslims and
 Christians.” Significantly, it also referred more generally to the role of
 Modi and his government in “promoting the attitudes of racial supremacy,
 racial hatred, and the legacy of Nazism through his government’s
 support of school textbooks in which Nazism is glorified” and
 to the finding (by the U.S. State Department) that Modi revised high
 school textbooks to describe Hitler’s “‘charismatic personality’ and the
 ‘achievements’ of Nazism.”47
To me it seems fairly clear that the author is quoting the two congressmen (who in turn supposedly quoted the Supreme Court, the National Human Rights Commission and the US State Department). However, our Wikipedia editors want to cut the congressmen out of the picture and want to directly attribute the words to the National Human Rights Commission and the US State Department. (I suppose it gives greater weight to the claims that way.) However, those agencies did not exactly say what the Congressmen claimed. In particular, the bits about "racial hatred" are not in any of the original sources. They were inventions of the Congressmen. So, the quoted words are there in the reference. But they are not attributed to who the Wikipedia article claims. So, this is a bit of a subtle problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddyuday (talkcontribs) 19:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Jake Rush[edit]

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

See the comments at Talk:Jake_Rush regarding sourcing, etc. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

An American politician that had the misfortune of having his offline activities covered by the press. Inevitably perhaps used against him. Kbabej insists this should be its own separate section, while I edited it to remove some irrelevant tabloid-ish content and blend it into the rest of the article (diff). I'm looking for some input as to whether this is really necessary from a WP:UNDUE perspective. I feel it makes the article seem like the role-playing stuff is 1/3 of the man's biography. I don't advocate outright removal of the material because of the level of coverage and sources (more in the article's talk page) but I do think we shouldn't make it into a circus either. Not sure if other editors agree. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this would be a WP:PUBLICFIGURE in the context of the allegations and the incident and what not. However, I do not think that it should warrant its own section. Reading the 'personal life' section as it sits, I think is a good compromise. It's not overshadowing it and blowing it out of proportion, but it's not too little mention either. Tutelary (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
This is tough. The key part of policy is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented. Is it all of those things? We are not a tabloid, but we also don't want to whitewash an article. I always feel that "material" has to have a very high level of noteworthiness(is that a word) and relevance to be included, especially for bios of politicians, since material can be added for partisan reasons. We all see things through differently tinted glasses as well it seems. Good luck. --Malerooster (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Walter Benn Michaels[edit]

Walter Benn Michaels (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

This article appears written entirely by its subject. The claims made about? (by?) the subject are never supported by citation nor derived from facts observable. All items are uncited -- especially statements about the author's/ subject's fame and ingenuity: "The speed of Michaels's logic..." (sic). The career hagiographized does not warrant or merit any treatment -- certainly not such extensive self-puffery. There is no countervailing view/ data/ opinion. I recommend the article be deleted immediately, and an investigation made of the author's "identity" and expertise with a view to blocking publication].

Gnothon 16 vi 02014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnothon (talkcontribs) 03:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If the article has problems, you're quite allowed to fix them. There's no need to delete the thing wholesale. Instead, just fix it up. If it needs references, find them and add them. If it needs the language improved, edit it and improve it. If there are key facets of the subject's life left out, research them and add them. We're not going to stop you. --Jayron32 03:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Marie Mason[edit]

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

This is something I don't know how to do. Apparently Marie Mason is now self-identifying as a man and is now known as Marius Jacob Mason. You can read about it at his prisoner support website: The title of the Wikipedia will need to be changed or have a redirect on it as other websites are now using his name, such as this one: 'Marius Mason was arrested in March 2008 after his former partner – Frank Ambrose – turned informant for the FBI. Facing a life sentence if he went to trial, Marius accepted a plea bargain in September 2008, admitting his involvement in the burning of an office connected to GMO research and the destruction of a piece of logging equipment. In February the following year, he received a sentence of almost 22 years. More information on Marius’ case can be found at'

The website 'supportmariemason' in the quote above now redirects to 'supportmariusmason' so I think WP should reflect this. I have put a couple of lines in the article but don't know how to change the article title.

Cheers, Tobermory conferre 07:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Johnny Winter[edit]

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

A bunch of IP addresses over the past day or two have been trying to change the article to reflect the death of Mr. Winter. However, I cannot find any reliable source to confirm that (a couple of nonsense blogs). I need to get sleep, and I don't actually get involved with these kind of articles, but I saw it pass my news feed on Twitter mentioning that "Wikipedia says that Johnny Winter is dead." So, hopefully someone can protect the article or something until there's some sort of reliable information about his life or death. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Confirming what SkepticalRaptor said above. I haven't applied protection, but the page merits watching. I've dug into the alleged references and there are two blog-type articles citing a Facebook update, which itself is uncommittal. Manning (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Update - I have now protected the page, as the updates were coming thick and fast. The rumour may well be true, in which case please update accordingly. Manning (talk) 10:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Death has been confirmed by AP, so I have removed the protection. Manning (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Clark Aldrich[edit]

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

Suggested or supposed real name is clearly not well known even if it is real - the chat is here

the story taken down is -

writer is using these Internet links - - - pp 6-8) - Brown Alumni webzine:

the take down editor has suggested a trolling issue and wrote this - According to documentation here (, Clark Aldrich's birth surname was indeed Aldrich. Further, according to the same genealogy report, he is the 11th great grandson of both Governors John Winthrop and Thomas Dudley. This is consistent with his bio here: At this point, insistence by the troll community at Get Off My Internets of the birth name Wezniak is best characterized as libelous. User:Intrepid French Learner

I do not understand so well the rules here - please assist, comment - Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mosfetfaser: What do the majority of reliable sources call him? Aldrich? Then that's what we should be calling him, period. I see discussions in the talk page around rather unreliable sources ("genealogy trees" no less) which we know are not acceptable on any BLP. WP:SYNTH and WP:OR are also not acceptable. Just call him what everyone calls him. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources, and there aren't that many, use a confusing variety of names and the diversity is not limited to the surname. There is diversity. This is a fact. A generic response without a detailed examination of the reliable sources isn't going to be useful in this instance. If it were that easy it would have been resolved already. Wikipedia editors obviously don't have the freedom to ignore reliably sourced information like Conduit, the magazine of the Department of Computer Science at Brown University. Any policy based solution is going to have to deal with the diversity. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
So... you have a magazine put out by CompSci students, and a "Bangor Daily News article about the Chewonki Foundation Camp in Wiscasset". That's it? And you feel that somehow overrides the sixteen sources in the article? Judging from the comments by Intrepid French Learner there, it might be that he changed his name. But if there is no reliable secondary record of that, then it's irrelevant. It is as simple as that: We call him what the majority of sources we have call him. If you feel so strongly about this then go ahead and open an RFC. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
"And you feel that somehow overrides the sixteen sources in the article?" what I wrote again. Of course it isn't "as simple as that". Of course reliable sources are not irrelevant. No one is talking about renaming the article. Of course I don't make content decisions based on 'feelings'. "it might be that he changed his name. But if there is no reliable secondary record of that"...sure, he may have changed his name, and the existence of reliable sources that use different names probably represent a reliable secondary record of that. Information in reliable sources does not go away by repeating the mantra 'it is as simple as that'. Diversity and inconsistencies between reliable sources are common are our job is to reflect the diversity, not bury it. So the question is how to do that. If you don't have an answer to that question in this instance you can't help. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
the existence of reliable sources that use different names probably represent a reliable secondary record of that ...I think you need to go read WP:SYNTH. As to the level of help I can provide, I can provide nothing more than my knowledge of policy. If you don't like it, you're free to ignore it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
FreeRangeFrog wrote "So... you have a magazine put out by CompSci students, and a "Bangor Daily News article about the Chewonki Foundation Camp in Wiscasset". That's it? And you feel that somehow overrides the sixteen sources in the article?" "Conduit" is not "a magazine put out by CompSci students", as you put it; it's a publication of the Department of Computer Sciences; i.e., the faculty. If you don't understand the difference between a university department and a group of some of its students, you have no business discussing the subject. Also, AFAICT, no one is suggesting that the article be changed to "Clark Wezniak"; merely that the lede contain a mention of his birth surname, as is typical with those who have changed their names (cf. Ralph Lauren). Next, those "sixteen sources" you mention are actually not sixteen sources. For example, source #1 never even mentions Aldrich, source #2 is no "source" at all; it's merely a quote by someone calling themselves "Clark Aldrich" which states "Our industry's equivalent of the Oscars. --CLARK ALDRICH", source #3 is an abstract from a 2011 article in Computer Weekly News that mentions Clark Aldrich, and so on. Significantly, none of the sources provided predate 2003. If Aldrich changed his name in the '90s, none of those sources -- even if they do mention Aldrich by that name -- would negate earlier records of him under a different name. Occam's Shaver (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
His previous name is not well known, is it? does he use the name at all? is there any notability to his previous name? is his notability connected in any way to his previous name? is it important at all here to scour the Internet to publish his birth name when he appears to not use it or reference it at all? Your comparison to Ralph Lauren fails - Lauren is a high profile public figure, Aldrich is not - he is almost not worthy of a story and deserves a bit of personal privacy as this wp:blp directs us to provide - that is my interpretation of this story, you may get support for another interpretation but just having link a dinks does not auto qualify publishing your story with wiki Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Mosfetfaser -- Aldrich has himself made the subject of his ancestry (and hence, his name) relevant. For whatever purpose, the bio he wrote and posted on his business website includes this: "(Aldrich) is the ninth great-grandson of Governors John Winthrop and Thomas Dudley, first and second Governors of the Massachusetts Bay Colony." His wife, Muffy Aldrich (AKA Lisa Aldrich, née Eastwood) is far more widely-known a public figure than is he. She has a website called "The Daily Prep" which likewise has far more traffic than her husband's site. On 26 July 2012, she posted this on her website: "Muffy Aldrich is not a nom de plume. For better or worse, the name Muffy Aldrich is real, in as much as 'Muffy' was a nickname foisted upon me decades ago and used by many friends; Aldrich is my husband’s family name" (emphasis added).source More recently, on 18 June 2014, she posted this: "...for a birthday present years back, my mother-in-law gave my husband Clark membership into a genealogical society. While many want to join a society using an ancestor of the same surname, the professional genealogist that she hired suggested that instead of using his direct ancestor George Aldrich (father's name/side)..."source (emphasis added). So the issue of Clark Aldrich's surname is one that she had been promoting before anyone questioned if it was the one with which he had been born. Indeed, both of them have used the "Aldrich" surname as a promotional device for him. That's the crux of the matter. It matters very little whether or not Aldrich's profile is high or low; it seems to be high enough to warrant a Wiki and thus, the facts about his identity are relevant. To claim that they are not would have a chilling effect upon any article about a living person and would require editors to try to guess whether or not factual material they were adding met some vague standards set by you or others. He and his wife have promoted his surname as relevant. That makes his surname (or surnames) noteworthy in the context of this article. Occam's Shaver (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
There's no significant external sources commenting on whatever name he may or may not have formerly had. Without those significant external reliable sources, we literally can't write anything. What has been dug up are genealogy web sites, blogs, vague alleged public records and so forth. Our policy on biographies specifically and explicitly excludes any such content from the encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is not a repository of every alleged fact about every person ever. It is an edited encyclopedia, and our editorial policies permit us to choose which information to include and exclude. Editing is not censorship and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBaranof -- In the article, Aldrich (or whoever the WP editor was who added his educational background) makes the claim that he earned a degree from Brown University. Elsewhere (e.g., his Linkedin page) he states that he graduated in 1989. However, there are no sources provided in the article to demonstrate that this claim is true. As you well know, WP requires reliable sources for all claims -- particularly for contested ones. You wrote "There's no significant external sources commenting on whatever name he may or may not have formerly had." That's simply not the case; one significant external source does indeed comment on a name he may not have formerly had: The 1989 graduation program published by Brown, of which I have a copy and which may be seen on-line. It certainly qualifies as a "significant external source". It lists all of the graduates' names, but there is no one named "Aldrich" amongst them. There is, however, a "Clark Bennett Wezniak". You can't have it both ways. Either claims will be reliably sourced and may stay, or if they cannot be sourced, they must be removed; no amount of handwaving can make that go away. As Wikipedia:Verifiable but not false states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Aldrich can only claim to have received his degree from Brown if he can demonstrate that he did. I'm calling him (or the editor who added the claim) out for adding false information. The evidence clearly shows that "Clark Aldrich" was not a graduate of the 1989 Brown class. The onus is on him (or other editors) to prove otherwise. Occam's Shaver (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
It would appear that this is an attempt to import an off-wiki battle or debate into the encyclopedia content. There are no significant reliable sources provided that suggest any reason as to why we would need to discuss this in his biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@Occam's Shaver: I think I am halfway capable of determining if a source is appropriate in context, and in this context, not only is it not appropriate, it's actually completely inappropriate, because you are attempting to use it to arrive at a synthesis conclusion. Let's step back for a second: Do you have a reliable source that plainly states X changed his name to Y? No? Then all that stays off the article. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Adam Kwasman[edit]

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

Minor politician seriously gafted by thinking bus load of kids were illegal aliens, when in fact they were local kids headed to the Y. Talking heads pick up story and off we go.

I would leave out this "material" as gotta journalism for now. --Malerooster (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Igor Girkin[edit]

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

Please keep an eye on this BLP. He's the rebel military commander who claimed credit for shooting down a plane right when an airliner crashed in eastern Ukraine. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I wrote the story as reported by reuters - in this Internet link - - hot topic at the moment - might need locking Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Mohammed Deif[edit]

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

I removed some claims from Mohammed Deif per WP:BLPSPS (diff). They've been added back (diff) with the explanation that "WP:BLPSPS is BY DEFINITION not applicable since the referene is a secondary souce, and the policy is for primary sources." This is a novel reading of the policy to me. I'm not even sure why the IDF blog would not be a primary source, since this organization is certainly giving an "insider's view". --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 02:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see your point, frankly. Or perhaps I do, and just don't agree? Seriously ... you think what the IDF reports is a "self-published" "personal or group blog"? Epeefleche (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I won't say it is a "personal or group blog". It is a self-published source. The policy reads "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject." --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 02:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Your first post asserts that you deleted the material "per WP:BLPSPS". WP:BLPSPS says "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs." We use what the IDF reports and what the Gaza Health Ministry (for example) reports and what the US State Department reports all the time -- which is fine. Where appropriate, clarity can be added by attribution. Epeefleche (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, because it is a self-published source. The IDF published it, the IDF wrote it. Therefore, it is self-published. Did someone else write it? Or did someone else publish it?
Sure we use such all the time. But by policy, it either has to be from a non-self-published source, or not for a BLP. Lots of non-self-published sources give IDF reports. Lots of articles are not BLPs. --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 03:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Our blps are replete with .gov refs. "Self-published" has a completely different connotation here. Attribution for clarification is fine, however. Epeefleche (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

S. P. Udayakumar[edit]

S. P. Udayakumar (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Article is poorly sourced — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Poorly sourced how? I can't see anything obvious that should cause concern. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The sources are reliable and definitely adequate, especially for how short the article is. I see no issue. Meatsgains (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Hearne[edit]

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

I just saw that there is no Kevin Hearne page, the log says it was repeatedly deleted basically because this author isn't significant. I don't understand how having 7 novels published by a major publisher, and writing several short stories and novellas, does not make someone significant. There are several articles about his books on this Wikipedia, for example The Iron Druid Chronicles for the whole series or Hounded for one book. Yet, the author's bio was deleted (even in 2014 when he had 6 novels published), and is now protected… we can't edit it.

Could someone unprotected the Kevin Hearne article, and maybe ask the people deleting and locking it to cool it off a little?

--Jérémie Bouillon (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want to create an article for a subject that has been repeatedly deleted, I suggest going through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. That way, an article can be reviewed and problems ironed out before it gets posted in article space. That doesn't guarantee that it won't get deleted, but it should clear the most likely problems. Having said that, you're going to need more to establish his notability than that he has published novels; that is what a novelist does, and being a novelist doesn't make one inherently notable in Wikipedia's eyes. See WP:AUTHOR for our basic standards for notability for writers. Really, if you can find a couple of independent, third-party articles about him and his work in significant places, or some good awards or even nominations, you should have it well in-hand.
The folks that have been deleting the article have been doing what they're supposed to do, it looks like, so no need to ask them to cool off. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Well beside the WP:AUTHOR rules being stupid (which is somewhat ok, IAR is there for these kinds of things), maybe a vague passing notion of book publishing would allow anyone to guess that if Del Rey has published 7 of someone novels, there's 2 reviews about some of these books out there. I mean, can someone point to any author published 5 or 6 times by such a publisher that does not have at least 2 independent book review? Ever?
Not 2 seconds of Google gives one and two. There, requirements met. Add another second on Google and get three, four, five, six, seven, eight and so on.
I would suggest you go through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation to discover that it doesn't work for locked article.
So, now that I spent way too much time dealing with rule lawyers who don't read their own rules, maybe those incredibly smart deletionist could write said article for me? Well for everyone else really, I don't care that much more, I personally don't need it. Nice, thanks. --Jérémie Bouillon (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
You can introduce it via the AFC process by creating it as a draft in your userspace (say, User:Jérémie Bouillon/Kevin Hearne. Then, as the AFC article notes "To nominate an existing draft or user sandbox for review at Articles for Creation, add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or sandbox page." It would probably be best to note on the article's talk page that this is an attempt to get a properly sourced and supported article into place for one that was deleted in the past, so it isn't assumed that you're just trying to resubmit the same content which had been previously deleted (as people sometimes do at AFD). --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what the article looked like, but it seems that it probably shouldn't have been deleted under Wikipedia:CSD#A7, which only applies to people with no credible claim given for importance of any kind at all, whether sourced or unsourced. Was the article less than a stub? If it had other issues it should have gone to discussion before deleting. At this point, this is a NYT bestselling author, which I would think would warrant a stub at least.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the deletion log, it was nominated for A7 speedy deletion because of "concerns over notability" and "lack of independent sources". This is not what A7 speedy deletion covers, and those are bad reasons for an A7. It looks like it must have failed a PROD in February 2014, which means it should have gone to a broader discussion, not a speedy deletion with less discussion. I think User:JzG took the wrong step here. I have no idea what the original article looked like or what kind of deficiencies it (or fellow contributors) had, so I'm assuming good faith all round, but I don't think it should have been speedily deleted. If the original article can't be looked at, it should be revived as a stub now.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't recall the specifics but it was IIRC related to spam / COI edits and no claim of notability other than "he wrote some books". I could easily have been wrong, feel free to do whatever seems good. I don't have bandwidth right now, just spotted an email, so let any othe radmin know I am completely cool with undoing any admin action I took. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much for responding, Guy. I understand COI problems, and if that was the only people working on the article then it would be unhelpfully spammy. But this author was on a national bestseller list this week, so maybe people might be looking on Wikipedia for him at some point, regardless of whatever happened in the past. The page is still administrator-only protected, so if someone could unsalt it, I can commit to making a stub article.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
All good, and a better article too. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


Silvio Berlusconi prostitute sex scandal (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Title is false and smearing the guy..Court overturned the case. He is not guilty.Stephanie Bowman (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

No opinion on guilt or not needed here - but the case is in limbo, so word changed to "trial" as being quite neutral. It may not be a perfect solution, but it seems to work IMHO. Collect (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Oops -- already renamed "sex scandal" by another editor although I think that may also have problems as a title. Collect (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
OP says he was found innocent, but the current page says guilty. In either case "trial" rather than "scandal" would be more neutral. CorporateM (Talk) 00:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that all sources point to a scandal, regardless of the outcome of the court case. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
in the header - and on July 18, 2014, an appeals court overturned Berlusconi's conviction, thus making him once again eligible to hold elected office. - imh-opinion trial would be better, he has been proven innocent of the allegations, so there is defacto no scandal to speak of. Silvio Berlusconi proven innocent of prostitute sex allegations would be a more blp following story title - it is clear to me to follow blp is important and as he is now innocent I have moved the story to Silvio Berlusconi prostitute trialMosfetfaser (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Although this conviction has been overturned, Berlusconi is still carrying out free work at a hospice following his conviction in an unrelated fraud case, and is therefore not eligible to hold elected office. RolandR (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
You may well be correct. I translated the web page used to write this story - thus making him once again eligible to hold elected office - and it was not verified so I took it down Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Does overturning his conviction=proven innocent? Or does it mean he wasn't proven guilty? Just asking. --Malerooster (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
A person who has been acquitted of a crime - I do get the point though, lol - Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

People r messing up[edit]

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

people r messing up christina aguilera's wiki pg can u revert it back to its normal way here the link of the old version: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoxozamina (talkcontribs) 20:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have restored content that was deleted for no apparent reason. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Mark Mathews big wave surfer - only has one T is his last name![edit]

Can whoever created the 'Mark Matthews' wiki page or for those who have access to this, please change the title to 'Mark Mathews'. He only has one 'T' in his last name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlet2014 (talkcontribs) 00:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone know of a way of reaching the article-subject and just asking them? CorporateM (Talk) 04:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Moved page to Mathews. Personal web page, facebook, twitter, linkedin, multiple news articles from surf magazine all use Mathews. Double t was used in a photo caption in that one The Australian news story and not in the article itself; clearly a typo after looking at other sources. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Google bomb#Personal reputation[edit]

I just added an entry under Google_bomb#Personal_reputation about a person apparently so non-notable to not have an article for himself. I added this because it was reported as a notable hack of Google listings and the person in question has continued to put himself in the public eye as a source for reports.

For example:

Did I do the right thing in this case? Hcobb (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The link above is to an unrelated story. And if the source you cited in the Google bomb article is the only one concerning the individual concerned, it looks undue to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The same news story has gotten play in other places.

etc. Hcobb (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Those do not appear to be RS... GiantSnowman 15:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Why do you feel that Advance Publications and Business Insider aren't RS? Hcobb (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Looking into this further, I don't think that even if the claims could be properly sourced, they'd fit the definition of 'Google bombing' that our article gives: "causing a web page to rank highly in search engine results for unrelated or off-topic search terms by linking heavily". Instead, it looks like simple 'reputation management'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Richard Wallace (scientist)[edit]

Richard Wallace (scientist) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)

Each and every statement in his biography is either unsourced or based on his own autobiography. - (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I read the article, and did a bit of research and it seems that this person may not be notable enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Samita Bajracharya[edit]

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

This article is about a minor who is the Lalitpur Kumari (or "living goddess") As she has to retire from that position as soon as she attains puberty, I think there should only be an article about the position, not the person. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The article was also created by a blocked user and so someone has now deleted it. Chris Fynn (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


W.I.Z. (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views)


My name is Ken Eakins, I have worked with WIZ recently on Dark Horses' 'Live on Hunger' video - You can see my name in the credits.

For some reason, WIZ's name has been entered as 'W.I.Z.' not 'WIZ'. I asked him, and he has no idea who initially entered the page, or why his name was spelt this way. It's actually causing me problems as well, as the direct link cannot be linked back on my site for references (I assume because of the three egregious '.' in his title.

I have edited all of the offending '.' out of the article, but I don't seem to be able to change the actual main name on the page. Can this be done for me?

Some proofs that he doesn't go by 'W.I.Z.' can be found at the following links - Promo news article A video by WIZ which shows the correct spelling of his name - Article about his Oasis video -’s-falling-down-wiz

I just set up a Vimeo page with him as well, which is kind of definitive I guess -

Anyway, thanks in advance (I'm guessing the 'W.I.Z.' was an old affection that he used to go by?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SittingNow (talkcontribs) 19:23, July 19, 2014‎ (UTC)

Hi Ken, and welcome to the wonderful world that is Wikipedia. That article currently have a great problem (and could possibly be deleted), it´s not cited to any reliable sources (WP:RS) whatsoever, and the only external link working is the IMDB one. Lots of articles don´t get a lot of attention, so this not uncommon, though it can be more serious when it´s about a living person (WP:BLP). I quickly found this [5] source though, so I´m fairly certain there are good sources out there. That source call him W.I.Z., imdb says Wiz (if I´m looking at the right one), and Wikipedia generally want the article to be called what he usually is called in mainstream media (what he himself prefers is not necessarily the deciding issue). I´m not sure which name is "best" right now, but maybe there are other editors around who can say. Finally, please be aware of WP:COI. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The article is now suggested for deletion, which can be discussed here: [6]. If the article is to remain, it needs to be shown there that WIZ fulfills the General notability guideline, see WP:GNG. You are most welcome to help with that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

David Tillinghast Multiple Inaccuracies[edit]

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

The following article contains major inaccuracies:

David Tillinghast

It appears that someone has combined multiple biographies and artwork from the web into a single article. This has recently caused embarrassment when this wiki article was used by conference organizers to present a biography and artwork to introduce me as a keynote speaker at a national conference.

Below is a comprehensive biography of mine for comparison:

“David Tillinghast graduated from Art Center College of Design in 1985 with a BFA in Illustration, Awarded With Distinction.

He has been a regular contributor to many of the major newspapers and magazines around the United States, and his work has appeared within the marketing materials for corporations such as Visa, Freddie Mac, and Harvard University. In a highly prolific twenty-nine year career, he has worked extensively in most major markets within the Illustration industry, including Advertising, Editorial, Book Publishing, Design Collateral, and Corporate Illustration.

His work has been selected for inclusion in industry publications including Communication Arts Illustration, Graphis Design, Graphis Logo, HOW Self-Promotion, Print's Best Booklets and Brochures, Print's Best Illustration and Photography, Print Regional Design Annual, Society of Illustrators Los Angeles, Society of Illustrators New York, and Step-By-Step Graphics. He has also appeared in galleries around Los Angeles. He is currently an Associate Professor and lead advisor for the Art Center College of Design’s Illustration department.

His association with Designmatters, Art Center’s social impact department, has taken him to the United Nations as a delegate for a project supporting the Millennium Development Goals, and their most recent collaboration, Uncool: The Anti-Gun Violence project, produced a series of children’s books that were adopted into local Public Libraries.

He is the recipient of numerous awards, most recently for Art Direction from the AIGA for Mark and the Jellybean Monster by Ariel Lee, which was selected as one of the fifty best books of 2012.

Partial List of Clients: Time, Inc., Business Week, Fortune Magazine, Texas Monthly, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, New York Times, Bantam Publishing, Viking/Penguin, Harper/Collins, McGraw-Hill Inc, 3COM, IBM, Freddie Mac, Hewlett-Packard, Visa, Motorola, Lucent Technologies, Nortel, Solectron, Xerox Corporation, Harvard Business School, Vanderbilt University.” Just a further head’s up: I grew up in the Pacific Northwest, and lived in New Zealand for a time as a child. I have been a resident of the greater Los Angeles area since 1982. I have no children. I was married for nearly twenty years, but my late wife passed away in 2011 from breast cancer. My mother is one of the last surviving Air Force Service Pilots, whom received the Congressional Gold Medal in 2010.

Can someone correct this article?

David Tillinghast Los Angeles, Ca

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Dtillinghast, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you.

At wikipedia we try to ensure that article content is supported by reliably published sources and so I have believe I have removed many of the items that you claimed were inaccurate because they lacked such sourcing. However in doing so, it appears that David Tillinghast may not meet the basic requirements for having a stand alone article - namely that third parties have discussed the subject in a significant manner. Perhaps you can you point the way to any professional reviews of the work? or any major awards that can be verified by sources that are not affiliated with Tillinghast ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Requesting a second opinion on Hema Malini[edit]

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

Editor raised questions on Hema Malini about the person's religion. Not clear cut and I have concerns about the sources and wanted a second opinion from someone more familiar with BLP policies. Please see Talk:Hema_Malini#Religion.3F. If this is the wrong place for this request, please let me know. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Climate scientists generally and Michael Mann Specifically[edit]

I've tried to remove some harmful material, believing it to be case of what I call "stealth libel". My deletion was reverted and I'm going to leave the material in the article while soliciting input, starting here at BLPN.

Article Name: Public opinion on global warming

Figure and Text I attempted to remove read:

Based on Rasmussen polling of 1,000 adults in the USA conducted 29–30 July 2011[1]
A July 2011 Rasmussen Reports poll found that 69% of adults in the USA believe it is at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified global warming research.[2]
  • This poll, of course, is directly measuring the impact of media coverage of Climategate.
  • In the long-running froo fa fa, various people said things about Dr. Michael Mann that prompted Mann to file defamation lawsuits.
  1. In US Fed District Court for DC, there is this one which reached a procedural matter which defendants lost. They appealed, and that appeal is now pending. If affirmed, the case will be sent back to the trial court for the discovery phase.
  2. In British Columbia, there is also a suit against Timothy Ball, which last I heard is in the discovery phase.

Although the poll wording at issue here is vague with respect to specific individual name, the 2011 poll came after two years of fairly intensive media coverage of the controversy . In my view, the sly wording of the poll is being exploited to do by the backdoor what can not be done directly - mount a BLP / defamation-esque / libel-esque attack on climate scientists generally, and Michael Mann specifically.

The example I used at the article talk page is this

Said X to media- Mr. Y raped my daughter.
Media newscast- X says Y raped X's daughter
Poll- Do you think anyone raped X's daughter?
Defamation lawsuit filed
Statute of limitations would have expired if suit had not been filed

With investigations finding no evidence of any rape at all, and with the defamation lawsuit pending, it's not appropriate for wikipedia to facilitate the spread of gossip by reporting "The poll reported 80% of the townsfolk think the girl was raped" ("by whom" being slyly implied with plausible deniability).

What say ya'll? Was my revert justified? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

No, your revert was not justified at all. Where in the text are any names even mentioned? This is not even a BLP issue. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:BLPGROUP "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis." In addition, anyone with the even a modest familiarity with the issue immediately knows this is about the Climategate emails including specifically the plaintiff in these lawsuits, Dr Michael Mann. Does sly omission of a name that is obviously implied allow backdoor BLP ? That's not the way my Momma raise me, anyway. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The content does not mention any groups either, you are just making shit up to remove something you do not like. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Research climate scientists are a group; nothing in the BLP policy says such a group must have a formal name. Plus, as I said, an honest person with a bare familiarity with the 2009 Climategate and the two years of media hype knows the 2011 Rasmussen report was asking about the scientists involved in that flap, at which Mann was a central member. In my view, you're defending assassination by innuendoNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The removal is completely justified. The intend of the poll (and its addition to the article) is clearly the defamation of those involved in the so-called "Climategate", since proven to be complete bollocks. Regards. Gaba (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
And were exactly in the content is climategate mentioned? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It is obviously insinuated. This "some scientists have falsified global warming research" leaves little room to pretend it might be referring to anything else. Regards. Gaba (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It is not insinuated at all, it does not mention names, nor groups. There are no BLP issues with the content. It is a poll reporting on what people think. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is. "it does not mention names, nor groups", that's why it's called an innuendo. "There are no BLP issues with the content", debatable. I disagree with you. Regards. Gaba (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
If you follow the link to the report provided below it clearly indicates that the poll was prompted by a NASA study that the deniers used to their advantage. It has nothing to do with the East Anglia emails that I can find. Can you point to something specific that does mention them? -- (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't say it was "prompted", it comments on a NASA report being purposely misinterpreted by a group of deniers (which happens quite often). The title of the poll (69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research) leaves little room for interpreting it as not being related to the so-called "climategate" fiasco. Regards. Gaba (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that Rasmussen is biased for the deniers because they asked people what they thought about the possibility of scientists fabricating climate research, or are you saying that Rasmussen is biased against the deniers by pointing out how the deniers purposely misrepresented the NASA report? The poll clearly mentions the NASA report when explaining the background for the poll. I don't see East Anglia emails mentioned at all. So again do you have anything of substance to link them or is the link pure conjecture on your part? -- (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a violation of BLP or "stealth libel". This is an article about the Public opinion on global warming. It would seem extremely strange that we cannot cover the topic of the public opinion on global warming in an article about the public opinion on global warming? I don't even understand how this is a BLP issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

(A) Suppose the article was Public opinion on NewsAndEventsGuy's pedophile status and the poll said "In order to support his own plausible deniability, how likely do you think it is NAEG only looked at child porn on his computer without downloadingsaving it?"
(B) The actual ultra-leading question was "In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?"
(C) If you haven't read Climategate you may not get the context, and may not know about the subsequent 2-3 years of frequent media hype that led up to this poll.
(D) The ultra-leading poll question is obviously tied to the climategate hype, which has spun off data-falsification claims that are now being litigated as defamation. The Fed Dist Court (DC) ruled on a procedural matter in Mann v National Review saying

Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.

(E) Your point is very well taken that results from a non-leading poll question on this subject, produced by an organization with a much better rep for neutrality than c, would be a great.... no, make that awesome... addition to the article. But the ultra-leading Rasmussen poll question generated the results they sought and really looks like stealth assassination of the group being asked about (climate research scientists). We should not aide and abet the BLP attack on this group. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I know who Michael Mann is and I'm aware of the context. Even side-stepping the issue of whether there's an identifiable person here (I don't think that there is), there is a world of difference between saying "it is at least somewhat likely scientists have falsified global warming research" and saying that "69% of adults in the USA believe it is at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified global warming research." If you have a reliable source saying that the poll question is misleading, then that certainly can be included in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
This is not really too complicated: the poll is unscientific and demonstrates the success of the fossil fuel lobby in sowing, in the public, a doubt which does not exist in the relevant scientific community. It's a useful illustration of how political interests have influenced public opinion and created an illusion of doubt. It stands alongside the work of the tobacco industry as an example of the way that vested interests can put off decisive action which is desperately necessary but not in their financial interest, and it can e presented in that context because there are many sources that support this. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, see Push poll; this particular poll had just 6 questions. I only just learned that term or would have linked to that article in my initial edit summary at the articleNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Push poll indeed, with confirmation bias to boot. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Someone remind me why we bother citing Rasmussen Reports at all, for anything? Aren't they fresh off predicting a Romney landslide in 2012? MastCell Talk 23:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Scott Hirsch[edit]

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

Article was brought to my attention as a "why does he get an article and my client doesn't?" It's actually a legitimate question. Most of the references are just random pages, primary sources or broken links to articles that do not mention the article-subject. A few quick searches bring up no sources of significance, except for a paragraph in TIME about being a spammer. Article appears to be primarily edited by SPAs.

I am not sure if there may be some remote conceivable COI in this case, so rather than AfD, I thought I would post it here. CorporateM (Talk) 03:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

True, the current links in the article aren't very good, so I looked around before nominating it for deletion. Turns out there are a few reasonable articles about Scott Hirsch out there. For example: Sun-Sentinel InformationWeek Sun-Sentinel again. All together I think he does have sufficient coverage; also, I admit I am intrigued by someone who can promote boxing on the one hand, and software on the other, it's not a common combination. --GRuban (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
There's some kind of wishy-washy thing going on there, one of the citations flat out calls him a spammer, yet it's used in a different context. And as far as I can see the significant coverage refers to that apps thing rather than everything else. I'd say we should have an article about the company/product and not the CEO. Smells like a curated vanity bio. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Augie Wolf[edit]

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

Awolf99 appears to be the biographical subject of Augie Wolf. He appears to take offense at content that I believe accurately summarizes a Los Angeles Times article. He contends that the article had factual inaccuracies. Ordinarily, I would revert with a mention of WP:TRUTH. What consideration should we give to the WP:BLP. According to Talk:Augie_Wolf#Content_removal_discussion, there was some discussion about this bio in Novmeber 2013.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - How widely has this "material" been covered? Can we find other sources or citations? I would err on the side of caution, especially if we are relying on only one source or citation. Just my .02$. I did some minor copy editing as well. --Malerooster (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Malerooster. I think it would be worth it to try to find another source, given the nature of the claims. The subject's argument that "no official documentation exists" is irrelevant because whatever that is would likely be a primary source anyway, but with things like these in a bio I feel we could be more diligent in finding citations to more than one source. Journalists have been known to get things wrong, and media have been known to ignore requests for revisions or retractions unless accompanied by a legal threat. Additional sources would mean the information is significantly more verifiable. Otherwise, I'd say just keep it off. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I am unable to find another source.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Beninati[edit]

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

IP user is repeatedly adding information copied verbatim from what appears to be a slam blog. I have reverted and asked them to stop several times.HtownCat (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I've given a final warning to the IP. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
ThanksHtownCat (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Nivedita Bhattacharya[edit]

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

Requesting some eyes at Nivedita Bhattacharya where a COI editor has basically overturned the article into essentially a puff piece, written like an advertisement.. Connormah (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I did a little copy editing, but needs better help. --Malerooster (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Dictionary of New Zealand Biography[edit]

Not living people, but I figured since this was where all the people who understood biography policies are, it was the best place for a good-faith notice of doing something novel. Dictionary of New Zealand Biography is the national biography of New Zealand. More than a decade ago there was a concerted effort to balance it for race, gender and class. Some of these people left few if any secondary sources as to their lives, resulting in encyclopaedia articles built entirely from primary sources. Some time ago I did a major push to get DNZB articles into wikipedia. Some of these balancing people are pretty borderline notability and quite a few got nominated at AfD. The overwhelming majority passed. There are a few problematic ones. In a (novel?) solution to this problem I've created a new section in the DNZB and am redirecting these very problematic ones to subsections there, but using persondata and cats on the redirect. See Barbara Weldon and Jessie Finnie. I'd appreciate feedback on this approach. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Adam Marshall[edit]

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

This article could do with some eyes. There's an editor trying to include some serious negative claims in a BLP article without any citation at all and I'm getting fed up with reiterating the same ground. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

William Bastone[edit]

A single purpose account is repeatedly adding unsourced negative material to the William Bastone article [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] and other articles, where they claim the subject endorses child prostitution. [12] At no point have any sources been added to support these accusations. Edward321 (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

You should report this at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Article semi-protected, dubious usernames blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Lindsey Doe[edit]

I came across an edit to Lindsey Doe on Huggle where the creator removed the notability tag and on the talk page has declared that it satisfies the BLP policy because she has x number of subscribers on Youtube based on WP:N#ENT. Does 130,000 Youtube subscribers count as notable? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm the author. I just wanted to note that I'm using that number heuristically and that I don't have a precedent for that number.TopherDobson (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The policy is very ambiguous. It says 'large followers'/'cult following'. While the article in question may satisfy the BLP or Notability policies, I'm more interested in determining what minimum number gives credibility. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
In my view, topic specific notability guidelines are just useful and generally-accepted rules of thumb that can be used quickly to decide that it is likely that a topic is notable. They are not policy. Given the nature of YouTube, I do not think that X number of subscribers guarantee notability, as subscribing is free and takes only a click. We still need to see evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability, especially when dealing with a biography of a living person. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah okay. that sounds good. I guess, this needs to be discussed a little more in depth? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


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

I have created this wiki page for A popular Hindi Television Actor, It is not poorly sourced, when I add sources/references they also get deleted. Why is Wikipedia behaving this way?— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

You should always log in to your account before editing here. In addition to other problems, you may run into trouble otherwise.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Clyde Lewis[edit]

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

A person or persons are continuously and repeatedly altering the Clyde Lewis page by inserting words such as "bizarre" and "farfetched" to describe this person in an attempt to defame his character. I have repeatedly removed the offensive, opinionated material as it detracts from the intended fact-based purpose of wikipedia. People read the articles on wikipedia to learn facts about the subject matter, not to read the opinions being inserted by vindictive persons with an agenda to malign the character of a person referenced in a wikipedia article. However, every time I remove the inappropriate content it is reinserted just a short time later. This has happened over and over again despite my ongoing efforts to keep the inappropriate material out of the article. "Bizarre" and "farfetched" are opinions, not facts, and have no place in a wikipedia article that had previously been 100% fact-based. The wording being inserted into this article is clearly done in a deliberate effort to portray Clyde Lewis as crazy. The article should contain facts, not opinions. If Clyde Lewis is crazy than the facts of the article will make that clear to the reader. Inserting opinions into this long-standing article for the sole purpose of defaming the subject of the article is not appropriate and devalues wikipedia as a whole. If the persons who have been altering the article feel so strongly about Clyde Lewis then they need to find a more appropriate website or other venue to make their opinions known, but wikipedia is not that place. I should not have to edit out the offensive material on a nearly daily basis just to keep the article objective and unbiased. This has gotten absurd and needs to come to an end.

This person above (subglobal) uses the excuse of the word "bizarre" to vandalize the text by deleting hundreds of words because she/he wants the page to be an advertisement. I deleted "bizarre" and "farfetched" and left the facts--which probably won't satisfy the fans and followers.Localemediamonitor (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Clyde Lewis

User:Localemediamonitor is writing stuff like this - Lewis maintains that the notion of artificially-induced climate change - - is a global conspiracy directly linked to Nazi ideals; he writes that efforts to combat perfectly natural climate change could lead to another Holocaust. This one would be carried out by the UN's "green police force, carrying out the same old and tired lies that led to genocidal directives that killed millions of people 70 years ago. " Lewis also believes that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting could have been a conspiracy designed to facilitate government gun control (accomplished by using devices to beam homicidal thoughts into the shooter's mind.) - rubbish verification imo Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I have had to take down a replacement of the disputed content added without any chat at all by User: Bearian - sorry to see such an experienced wiki writer as User: Bearian edit warring this poorly sourced disputed story back into the wiki - Mosfetfaser (talk)

there is some warring going on to rep[lace this disputed content - User:/Roberticus has turned up to replace the disputed stony - Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes User: Mosfetfaser is deleting entire sections that have verification and citations. I think experienced wiki writer User: Bearian was right on this one. User: Mosfetfaser is also issuing warnings to me, what's up with that? Is User: Mosfetfaser working with vandal User: Subglobal (who also is vandaling my user page?) in order to make the whole entry into an advertisement because they are fans? - unsigned by User:Localemediamonitor
Nothing there in your chat of any value then - Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

"User:Localemediamonitor is attempting to war the story into the article again - - Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Mosfetfaser is the warring editor who is ignoring experienced users and deleting perfectly fine citations and verification. What wiki guidelines say you can do that? Localemediamonitor (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

again to go to the story write - WP:PRIMARY and a you tube link that is removed because of copyright violation - seems to violate all wiki rules for living peeps - Lewis maintains that the notion of artificially-induced blp:Primary and a you tube link - - seems to violate all wiki rules for living peeps - Lewis maintains that the notion of artificially-induced climate change - - is a global conspiracy directly linked to Nazi ideals; he writes that efforts to combat perfectly natural climate change could lead to another Holocaust. This one would be carried out by the UN's "green police force, carrying out the same old and tired lies that led to genocidal directives that killed millions of people 70 years ago. " Lewis also believes that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting could have been a conspiracy designed to facilitate government gun control (accomplished by using devices to beam homicidal thoughts into the shooter's mind.) - Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Well-sourced information should be kept. I attempted to fix the article, and was rebuffed. Bearian (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
You User:Bearian did not attempt to fix anything at all - you simply revert warred without any attempt at discussion at all - It is not well sourced content in any way is it - User:Bearians total contribution without a single discussion was this revert - - Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
you Mosfetfaser did not attempt to fix anything either, you just deleted entire sections, which is why you have been overruled by everybody. Localemediamonitor (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of the material in question per my comments @ the article talkpage, and WP:SELFSOURCE to support the inclusion of the sourcing from the Ground Zero website. Let's try to build a consensus here. Is there any doubt that is published by Lewis? If not, the primary sourcing should stand. I do agree modifiers such as "bizarre" and "farfetched" were appropriately edited out by User:Localemediamonitor. It is fair though to say he discusses these sorts of ideas when he clearly publishes it. I also feel the secondary sourcing is acceptable. Roberticus talk 00:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Roger Goodman[edit]

RED SLASH and Breawycker keep changing entry to include libelous material. RED SLASH has been contacted twice and refused to remove. Please see copy received earlier this evening from KOMO 4 News--showing that it is recognized that an error was made. They have corrected the libelous statement accordingly, therefore, any changes to reflect otherwise are considered intentional. I will be sending a copy of this message to both wiki editors. THANKS.


04:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Liv Grohn

benjamin netanyahu[edit]

Benjamin Netanyahu is not the first Israeli prime minister born in Israel, Yitzhak Rabin was born in Israel and was prime minister before Netanyahu.

Without looking at the details, here's my guess: Rabin was surely born before 1948, thus before there was a State of Israel. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    • ^ Liv, A few minutes ago, KOMO changed the offending sentence in the text version of our story about the PAC funding ads against the Roger Goodman campaign to read: “I asked Carns if it was fair to quote divorce documents in the Goodman ad.” The videos we post to our website are cut from our aired newscast and thus cannot be edited after the fact. The video has been removed. Kelly Just Executive Producer, Problem Solvers Unit KOMO-TV 140 4th Ave. N – Suite 370 Seattle, WA 98109 Desk: (206) 404-4235