Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Marietta, Georgia

Resolved

 – This is vandalism that can be removed without controversy and the IPs blocked. Nothing else to do here. Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Marietta, Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Two IPs (perhaps the same person) keep vandalizing this page with unreferenced comment about Melanie Oudin. They continue to post" Oudin also has the long-time nickname of "The Little Chicken," a nod to the Big Chicken landmark of her hometown'

There is no refence that this is true and in fact may be a slur against this young lady. The IPs are 66.191.125.116 98.251.120.123

They are also vandalizing the entry for "Big Chicken" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.232.57 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 27 September 2009

This is the wrong place to put it. Marietta, Georgia is not a person and this is the BLP board. Try the vandalism board for recent vandalism, AN for a long term problem. Mayor of Gotham City (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The change concerned a living person therefore BLP applies. I'm not saying that this wouldn't be better handled somewhere else but this is definitely a potential BLP issue and is not off topic here Nil Einne (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Brittny Gastineau

On this article, an editor is reverting the removal of an unsourced quote by Brittny Gastineau as "vandalism". The quote is from the movie Bruno and talks about how the subject thought that another famous living person (Jamie Lynn Spears) should have had an aborotion. My question is, is it apporpitate to add unsourced quotes to a biography of a living person? I also think this content is trivial and shouldn't be in the article. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.18.229 (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not unsourced to state what her role was in the movie. Removing these facts is vandalism. Spidey104 (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh...you're involved and not exactly a neutral party. i would like some input from someone not involved and someone who understands what vandalism actually is. Also the unsourced quote has been removed with just a mention of her apperance in teh film which should be enough. Rewording content is NOT VANDALISM. who wrote this?

I never claimed rewording content was vandalism. Removing the content IS vandalism and that is what I was constantly fixing. The rewording of the content was done AFTER I re-added the information to revert the vandalism that was removing the content. You are portraying events contrary to facts. Now that the content is reworded ,with the necessary information still included, I am happy with how it stands. Spidey104 (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the above comment and I AM NOT portraying events contrary to fact. you have reverted rewritten content even if that means repeating the same info twice and called vandalism. That can be seen in this link [1] It was the next to last edit you made to the article when you finally stopped edit warring which I appreciate. Now 128.104.213.238 has taken up your cause of including an unsourced inflammatory comment about another living person. I'll assume good faith for now but i find that coincidental. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.34.240 (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I find it ironic that 70.243.34.240 is accusing me of continuing an edit war on an article that he himself has edited under at least one other address (70.241.18.229). I have continued to make edits to other articles since I stopped touching the Brittny article, so what evidence do you have to prove that it is me? I only just now noticed that this edit war was continuing because I was about to remove this page from my watchlist. Spidey104 (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. 128.104.213.238 (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not ironic to have a rotating ip address. My isp gives me a new ip everytime I log on. You can also mark all the talk pages of the ip's I use but it is not sockpupperty to use different ips to edit. I haven't been acting like I'm different people or used the different ips to create fake support for my edits or anything so you can find it ironic all you want but youre sadly mistaken and you know it. If I were you Id find the fact that the 128.104.213.238 ip hasn't edited once since June 2009 and only appeared to help you re-add the text youve been readding to the article since July 2009 [2] more ironic than my valid ip change. There's also the fact that they edited three times in the last three days about thirty minutes after you. [3] [4] [5] I guess you can't be the same person though because you warned them on their talk page and then they told you (twenty-six minutes later) that they will probably keep on edit warring [6]. Plus they even vandalized your page which no sockpuppet would ever do [7]. Unless you want to battle wits some more about sockpuppetry this issue is resolved because the BLP violating text has been removed for the tiem being. I wont be surprised if 128.104.213.238 shows back up to start the game again though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.34.210 (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's rather convenient that you have a rotating IP address so you can do whatever you want without anyone linking you to a string of edits. You should just register. I on the other hand continue to use this one and only IP address so that everyone knows it's me. I'll eventually register, but only after this conflict has been solved as I want people to know it was me the whole time and not think it's two separate people. 128.104.213.238 (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I have now registered because it was the only way to try to keep my fight alive. 128.104.truth (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as someone uninvolved in this particular dispute, I think that the sourcing policy involving direct citations to creative works (movies, books, TV shows, etc) is often interpreted inappropriately. While such citations are appropriate for content involving in-universe aspects of fictional works, they are not appropriate for verifying "real-world" claims. They amount to no more than an editor's assertion that "I read it in a book" or "I saw it on TV," or something similar. An in-universe claim about a fictional character is quite unlikely to result in harm to any real person, so the usual cautions about original research and primary sourcing can be less restrictive; when a real person is involved; WP:BLP and the principles behind it require stronger, more reliable sourcing than an editor's assertion/recollection. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Need opinions on which photos are better

I took a bunch of photos over the weekend at the Big Apple Con of the various celebrities and artists, and in placing the pics in the appropriate articles, I've come across a few in which I'm not sure which is the better photo. In three of the cases I'm not sure if the one already in the article is better, and in the fourth, I'm not sure which of the two I took should be used. I could use some opinions on this. I usually just switch the photo when the one in the article is of lesser quality (and there are quite a few of those), but since this is more ambiguous, I'd rather get some objective opinions, rather than create the appearance of just favoring my pics.

1. Daphnee Lynn Duplaix The one currently in the article is cropped off at the top, chopping off her head. The one I took doesn't have that problem, but I'm not sure if the lighting is too bright (which sometimes happens when I use the flash).
2. Michael Hogan The one in the article looks good, though the lighting is a bit dark. The lighting in the one I took is better, I think, but I wanted to be sure.
3. Lou Ferrigno Ferrigno's face is partially in shadow in the photo currently in the article. This isn't a problem in the one I took, but he isn't facing the camera, which I usually prefer.
4. Joanne Kelly I sometimes take a pic of the celebrity I meet with the flash and one without, and usually, the one with is the better one, but in this case, I'm not sure. The one with is the one I put into the article, but I think she looks really good even in the one without, and wanted some feedback.

What do you guys think? Nightscream (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Note, I'm a fairly harsh critic on pictures. #1 the article pic is better for me as your has a distracting background; #2your is better, but needs to be cropped to portrait format; #3 article pic is better, if too dark; #4 the natural light pic is better, but you need to clone out the dude in the BG.

2 is a great portrait, I'd be very happy if I'd taken it. Kevin (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My 2¢: Pic #1 - I'm torn. I think your picture is better in general but that annoying piece of paper in the background brings it to a tie. Pic #2 - Yours is better if cropped a bit. Pic #3 - The article one is definitely better. Pic #4 - I like the natural lighting one. I didn't actually notice the tiny guy in the background at first, but as noted by Kevin you need to remove or obscure his image somehow. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of the respondents, however, make sure you add {{Commonscat}} to each article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Have to ditto the above. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

@Nightscream, I too agree with Kevin and ThaddeusB. --Túrelio (talk) 09:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

1. yours would need cropping, the background could be reasonably fixed if annotated on the file page.
2. agree re cropping, shame people don;t use more diffuse lighting for "baldies"
3. stick with the existing - better for the infobox.
4. natural light.

Rich Farmbrough, 02:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC).

• Thanks for asking my opinion/s which are as follows:

1. Daphne - yours if you are able to crop image background to remove most if not all of the background - perhaps some photoshop work?
2. Michael - yours
3. Lou - stick with current image
4. Joanne - I like the second image better accept for the curtains parting to reflect person X - so I suggest you keep your alternative - the current one.

--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 04:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• My opinions for what they're worth:

1. Daphne - I think the original is better; the new one has lighting problems, and problems with distractions in the background (e.g. a pair of jeans, a poster on the wall behind her head).
2. Michael - I think the new photo is better; I don't like the lanyon he's wearing around his neck in the original. However, I would photoshop the new one to fix up his hair in a few places, and also remove a distracting intrusion of grey in the background in the bottom left corner.
3. Lou - I think the new photo is probably a better photo but is taken in profile, which probably means the original is more appropriate for the infobox. It also has another face intruding in the background.
4. Joanne - I can't decide in this case. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• My opinions, and thank you for asking. (I am using a *bright* contrasty LCD monitor in a dark room) Loosely, I agree with a good number of the above comments. (Is there any rule against using both photos?) But the real question is which you can effectively retouch.

1. Daphne - Existing photo has acceptable contrast, yours (until modified) does not (esp the washed out areas, on my monitor, at least). On the other hand, yours shows more personality, and also, er, attributes for which she is partly known.
2. Michael - Existing photo makes him look more like "the star", I find him harder to identify as Colonel Tigh in yours (for what that's worth!) Both photos need retouching to correct lighting on forehead.
3. Lou - Prefer yours. The shadow on one eye in the existing one might be difficult to correct convincingly.
4. Joanne - Yours is better in several respects.

On aggressive retouching. If you have very good skills, do it. As webmaster I was often asked to reshoot equipment pictures...the cohort in the next cube had been a magazine photo editor, and his standards were outrageously high. I had no alternative to avoid professional criticism from him, except to do color balancing, "unsharp edge", mask backgrounds, and sometimes adjust perspective. (And that's photographing using studio lighting.) I rather like the chance smiling guy in the background of your Joanne. I'd barely modify it at all (the very, very faint white blemish on left halfway between them, even with top of glasses bugs me for some reason), unless it was to standards for some magazine (or Wiki "standards" as mentioned in above comments?) All the others, I'd retouch. The existing one on Lou I might delete, even without your substitute. Best Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't have much to add to the above; substantial retouching as suggested might change things, but at the moment I prefer the current article photo for #1 and the natural light version for #4. Rd232 ^talk 08:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for asking.

1. Daphne: yours iff you make the contrast/saturation much more subdued
2. Michael: yours
3. Lou: stick with current one
4. Joanne:slightly leaning towards yours.

Hope it helps. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 11:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cyclopia's views. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm no photography expert at all, but I would say #1 yours with cropping, #2 yours, #3 status quo and #4 I'm really ambivalent but I guess the second one. - Draeco (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Concur with Draeco (as to both the choices and the disclaimer of expert status). As to Joanne Kelly, both are good, maybe I'd lean a tiny bit toward the natural light photo provided you can eliminate the mystery head behind the curtain (would be a cute detail in a random photo, but IMHO not the most appropriate detail for the top-of-the-page infobox photo). Hope you had a good time at Big Apple Con. Best,--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Another two cents: Daphne: replace with yours. Michael: replace with yours. Lou: do not replace, yours is worse. The much more engaged facial expression and sharper focus of the existing photo trumps the better lighting of yours. Joanne: replace with the unflashed one; the lighting and facial expression are both better. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I could only come to a clear conclusion for 1, 2 and 4. 1 although the improvements are good (I was confused by the above comments first until I realised the image had been changed) I still feel the existing image is better. The cut off hair is annoying but since this isn't Marge Simpson the highlight problem (not sure if that's the right word) in your image IMHO means it's worse. 2 yours is better although obviously needs cropping. As for 4 I agree with many above natural light is better. One thing it may be better to crop each image as appropriate then put a page, e.g. sandbox where you show each image the right thumbnail pixel size. That way it's easier to compare between versions. Comparing images of different size may not always give the right idea. Nil Einne (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions. But I need some clarification on something:

• Zscout370, Kim D. Petersen and Turelio, all three of you stated that you agreed with Kevin and ThaddeusB. But Kevin and Thaddeus did not agree themselves on Daphne's pic. Which pic of Daphnee did you prefer?
• Piano non troppo, Cyclopia and JackLee, you said that you prefer "my" Joanne Kelly pic. But both of them are mine. Which one were you referring to?
• Most of you said that you preferred my Daphnee pic, but only if it was modified to crop it, and/or fix the contrast/saturation. I can crop it in PhotoShop, but I don't know how to fix saturation/contrast. Are any of you able to do that? Could you then upload it to the Commons (with a "2" placed at the end of an identical file name)? Do you know anyone who can? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

10.17.09JoanneKellyByLuigiNovi2.jpg was the one I would consider printing and putting on my wall. Also, if you are not able to fix contrast now, I'd suggest you get a shareware program (there might even be a free "lite" Photoshop). www.tucows.com can be a good source, otherwise. Photo retouching can be extraordinarily complicated, but moving a single slider and seeing how you like the change is dead easy (and fun). Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW on 21 October I uploaded a version of the Daphnée pic with the background clutter removed. Unfortunately parts of her forehead, nose and cleavage are irrecoverably overexposed (you can avoid this in future by setting your EX-Z750's exposure compensation to under-expose by 2/3 of a stop). Anyway, I have now uploaded another version (timestamp xx:57) with her chemise a little less saturated and reduced brightness/contrast of flesh tones, and a further version (timestamp yy:49) that uses blurring to restore colour/texture to the over-exposed areas. The differences are quite subtle and may not be enough to rescue the image. Anyway, I hope this helps. The decision about cropping is up to you! Cheers - Pointillist (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking over the Menu in my camera, I see that there are "Contrast" and "Saturation" functions, so I should be able to fiddle with those the next time I cover an event, but where is exposure compensation or the stop manipulation?

Where did you upload these new version of the Daphne pic? I don't see them at the Big Apple Con page. Nightscream (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the new versions are on commons at 10.17.09DaphneeLynnDuplaixByLuigiNovi.jpg. I checked on the Casio website and the tech spec for the EX-Z750 says it offers exposure compensation up to ±2 EV in ⅓-stop increments, but I'm afraid I don't know where to find that setting on the camera's menu. All I can say is that it is worth looking for, because over-exposure is impossible (or very difficult) to fix whereas slight under-exposure is easy to correct. - Pointillist (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

My comments as experienced user. Kasaalan (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Daphne_Duplaix.JPG top part cropped is not good, though photograph is good.
1. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:10.17.09DaphneeLynnDuplaixByLuigiNovi.jpg good yet overexposed and needs some cropping to balance photograph
1. You may use both photographs, except top cropping http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Daphne_Duplaix.JPG is better as image quality. Yet if you like I can fix your photograph issues with image editor. Daphnee Lynn Duplaix
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Hogan_Dragon_Con_2008.jpg red eye, wrong depth of field, eyes looking right, some top cropping might be useful
2. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:10.18.09MichaelHoganByLuigiNovi.jpg angle weird, he doesn't stand still but lean therefore proportions got wrong, weird smile, head leaned one side, forehead is overexposed by flashlight, you should adjust your flashlight levels try shifting exposure setting
3. Might be useful as a side reference. Cannot be used as standalone image.
4. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:10.17.09JoanneKellyByLuigiNovi2.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:10.17.09JoanneKellyByLuigiNovi3.jpg nice photographs, really good work. I will check side by side then tell which one is better.
4. Both photographs are same, except you photomontaged one with panting black, over background. But it is not good, I prefer original one. But why you mentioned about flash, both photographs are same it is not an flash-without flash comparison. Kasaalan (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you brought up that 2008 Michael Hogan image, since it's not mine, and I never mentioned it. As for his posture/pose/smile, those would seem to be determined by his natural physiognomy and/or his personal choice. I've already cropped that photo and placed it in the article.

As I explained regarding Joanne Kelly, one photo was taken with the flash, and the other without. Because of what the others said here, I placed the one without the flash in her article.

Pointillist, thank you very much. Btw, how did you manage to remove the old Daphne pic from the Commons? There are some old versions of photos of mine I'd like to get rid of in favor of retouched versions, but don't know how to do that. Nightscream (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I've replied in more detail on my talk page. - Pointillist (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I criticized as professional as I can, my opinions are the same. Generally except Joanne Kelly your photographs require underexposure manipulation in photo editor. It isn't about flash or not, in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:10.17.09JoanneKellyByLuigiNovi3.jpg it appears you photo-manipulated and erased the man in the background from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:10.17.09JoanneKellyByLuigiNovi2.jpg. I didn't check with photoshop so I am not certain. If you have done so you should avoid that photograph. Kasaalan (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hak Ja Han

Could someone help with an ongoing dispute at this article? The question is if it is alright to include inaccurate information on someone if that information is found in a "Pulitzer Prize-award winning reliable source", but still known to be inaccurate.Steve Dufour (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The information is supported by independent reliable secondary sources. Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) is a bit disingenuous here, as he makes an unsupported claim, above. Cirt (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted there was already an WP:RFC on this issue. And it should be noted further that, contrary to the consensus of that RFC, Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) edited to remove the entire section of material [8]. Cirt (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I still think it is wrong for a WP article to repeat an inaccurate statement, even it that statement is from a "reliable source." Steve Dufour (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

From the policy page WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. (emphasis on original page text). Cirt (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

But doesn't WP policy hold BLPs to a higher standard? Steve Dufour (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

High standard of sources - yes. High standard does not mean opinions of individual Wikipedia editors equals truth. Cirt (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability is important. Truth is also important but BLP violations can't be excused because they are true. Nobody should think that false information is ok as long as there is a source. That could be a BLP violation. Ipromise (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: The sentence in question was removed [9]. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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

This Article has no reliable References or Critical Content. It feels more like an Advertisement of the Artist himself. 01:42, 26 Oct 2009 Homem-Christ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.153.196.11 (talk)

Malia Obama

Consolidating debate

President Obama has stated that he wants to less press coverage over his daughters. Some people interpret this to mean that he threatened Wikipedia not to have an article. This is not true. I am here because I had an AFD for Malia Obama (to have the current redirect changed back to the article) but it was speedily closed. Some may say that it was a scheme to keep Malia Obama from having an article. I'm just following instructions given in that AFD. (new information: The ANI concensus has been decided: This is the proper place for discussions and it must not be removed!) She is notable as admitted by several people who are opposed to her article (see Malia talk page). They call her marginally notable but the standard is just no non-notable people on Wikipedia. She is now the First Daughter, unlike in early 2008, when the AFD was speedily closed and she was an unknown daughter of a candidate who was going to lose to Hillary. Malia Obama has had several articles written about her that was not about Barack Obama. These were in reliable sources. Some has suggested that the WP:BLPNAME policy prohibits mention of children UNLESS they are notable. 99% of people say that blocking out her name is a silly idea which means that she is notable. BLPNAME allows mention of notable children. Please do not create roadblocks by saying this is the wrong place. It would just verify that people are using fake excuses to not have a Malia article. You should conclude that she is more notable than many, many other articles in Wikipedia that have survived their AFD and that there are no BLP violations in some of the more recent versions. The instructions at the top say that this board can be used for editing disputes (in this case it is to stop using a redirect to wipe out the article) SRMach5B (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Note that I restored the above remarks because this is one of several possible boards that were suggested to SRMach5B. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Noting that via related discussions elsewhere, SRMach5B was directed to come here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse_redirects_and_problems_with_gangs_of_editors, Talk:Malia_Obama#Fully_protected_..., Talk:Family_of_Barack_Obama#Malia_Obama_article, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_October_25#Malia_Obama_.282009.29. For what its worth, I'm also in favor of a separate article for Malia Obama as I've mentioned at those links. I've described that after reviewing everything I could see, it was my opinion there is no clear consensus that a separate article should not exist (instead of covering Malia within the obama family article). The AfD SRMach5B started to to try to get consensus divined was shut down, so there's been no formal !vote since May 2008. In my view, it will inevitably be its own article sooner or later. When Wikipedia has a perceived gap like this, typically the article keeps getting recreated by less-frequent contributors who can't believe there isn't one, and eventually it sticks. I've already responded to the arguments that Malia isn't sufficiently notable, or is merely a minor, in the other threads; no need to persuade me otherwise, I'm just watching from the sidelines.--Milowent (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC) I really can't see a reason not to have an article. WP:BLP concerns must be monitored carefully, but there are enough sources around to make her notable enough. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC) This has been discussed many times, and with respect, I disagree with Milowent's interpretation of the sense of the community of editors on the Obama articles: I believe the data shows consensus has been overwhelmingly against separate articles for these children, repeatedly favoring instead redirects to the Family of Barack Obama which amply covers them. Numerous editors who have followed the Obama set of articles have weighed in about this over and over again, with additional editors adding to Milowent's list of editors who had already favored the redirect, reaffirming the consensus (which of course has had a few dissenters). This was discussed again long after her father became President - and no new arguments have been made. The claim that opens this section and has been made elsewhere that somehow the redirect is favored because of a Presidential wish is utterly absurd - as is the convoluted and equally absurd argument that the names should be removed entirely and replaced by "XXXX", recently raised by a sockpuppet of a banned editor attempting again to evade his ban. ([Removed here.) Please see Talk:Family of Barack Obama#Malia Obama article and subsequent sections on that talk page and Talk: Malia Obama for lengthy discussions. Bringing this subject up over and over again without any new information or argument is disruptive. I also note the comment made here which quite correctly points out that this article is covered under the Obama article probation policy, and which raises the question of whether this disruption should be reviewed under the terms of the probation and perhaps action taken. There's a limit to how many times people are willing to say the same thing in opposition to an already-rejected idea, and I agree that bringing this up over and over again in different forums is tendentious editing that needs to be addressed. Tvoz/talk 09:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC) I saw that on ANI. On ANI, the report was that Tvoz wikistalked the user and sought banning based on the accusation of sockpuppetry. That's a common tactic in Wikipedia that if your case is weak, attack the user on a variety of charges, like sockpuppetry. Whether or not you want a certain article, you should stick to logic and reasoning, not become disruptive and accuse everyone else of things. Otherwise, Tvoz and Unitanode are socks as are me and Milliworth. SRMach5B (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Actually, the false AN/I "report" was closed down almost immediately because it was completely false, and in fact that latest sock account has since been confirmed by checkuser to be a sock of the banned user Dereks1x/Archtransit/and many many others. A common tactic in Wikipedia, unfortunately, is to choose to disrupt rather than to create, and to attempt to wear down the opposition by blitzkrieg postings of the same tired non-arguments - and this is a shining example. The logic and reasoning have been presented many times over, so your repetition of imaginary reasons for long-time editors' consensus that at this time a redirect to the Family article is appropriate - until such time as things actually change - has become disruptive, tendentious, and suspect. (Also, please don't post in the middle of my posts.) Tvoz/talk 20:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Discussions of this issue have happened all over the project. Consensus has been reached that any such article would currently violate NOTINHERITED, and our common understanding that notability standards for marginally notable minors are higher. Some people don't like the consensus, so they find new ways to skirt it, such as the "AfD" that started this thread. This needs to end now. UA 09:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia allows biographies on anyone that is notable, marginal or not. Just not non-notable people. Therefore, UA's logic support inclusion even though he opposes it.SRMach5B (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) This is becoming rather tendentious and disruptive, yes. All she is is the child of famous parents; that is not notable in the slightest. Tarc (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC) UA, Tvoz, and Tarc weigh in above, and all are consistent with their prior posts on this issue in the list of links in my prior comment - i.e., they oppose the existence of a separate article on Malia Obama and believe they view represents consensus. I don't see this discussion as disruptive, though, as this is the forum SRMach5Bwas expressly directed to for discussion. Only one previously uninvolved (I think) editor, The Wordsmith has chimed in to date. I realize that few editors may want to take the time to review the other discussions cited above that led to this one, but perhaps a few will before this discussion is closed.--Milowent (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC) My opinion is that this should stay as a redirect unless she takes steps to become notable in her own right, instead of just as her father's daughter. For example, when Amy Carter was arrested at an anti-war protest in college, that was her own action, and would have gained her independent notability had this been an issue then.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Sarek, what about the fact that every presidential child since FDR has had their own article, and many are NOT notable for anything they did except have a president for a father (some presidential children even died as children and have articles). That's one precedent I've looked at, but I'm sure its not the only applicable one. Amy was arrested in 1985 (four years after Carter left office), but I bet we would have been having this same debate in 1977, as there was significant independent coverage of 8-11 year old Amy in 1976-79, .e.g.,[10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15],[16], [17],[18], [19],[20], [21], [22]--Milowent (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC) OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. --guyzero | talk 17:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Yes it is. That policy explains that the existence of other articles can be important information as to what types of articles we should have. The policy also suggests that simply saying "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument" is not a valid argument itself!--Milowent (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Except that I've provided other rationale elsewhere, just merely addressing that the argument that other Prez kids having an article does not mean that this kid also should have one --- a topic that has come up in this debate continuously. There really needs to be a stronger, content-oriented, rationale to create other than this. --guyzero | talk 19:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC) I think that she has become notable in her own right to have an article here. Perhaps had BHO not been elected president, their notability would not be enough independent of him, but that is no longer the case. WVBluefield (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC) As I've opined elsewhere, she is not notable outside of being Barack Obama's child. She has done nothing to establish her own notability outside of events that involve her famous parents. We have, in the past, defaulted to redirects to the parent's article for children that have not developed their own notability. This is a young girl who happens to be a president's child, and has no need at this time for an individual article. I'm amazed that this has spread so far over the project, with so many different locations; precedent is pretty clear in this case. Until she's done something on her own that is notable enough outside of the sphere of being a president's kid (or a presidential candidate's kid, at least, case in point). Tony Fox (arf!) 15:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia notability is judged by inclusion in reliable sources. Malia is covered so she is notable. SRMach5B (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC) No, because a reliable source has mentioned someone's name does not mean they automatically get a wikipedia article. --guyzero | talk 17:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Its pretty amazing that Al Gore III, a mere VP's kid, went through eight deletion nominations to get deleted! Why?--Milowent (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC) A fact isn't relevant though. Al Gore 3 =! Malia Obama. --guyzero | talk 17:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Have you ever seen them in the same place?--Milowent (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Summary The points for inclusion are noted in the beginning. Milowent also adds comments. The points against inclusion are that she is not notable despite filling the criteria and that being the First Daughter raises the bar to notability versus other biographies. SRMach5B (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Your summary pretty much amounts to "she's notable because I said so", which doesn't stack up very well against others who have citations such as WP:NOTINHERITED, i.e. "Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article.". Also, simply being mentioned in a reliable source is not the sole criteria of determiner of whether or not someone gets an article about them. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Unless and until there is enough published/non-trivial content about her to have her warrant her own article, it should remain a redirect to the Family article where there are several paragraphs about her and her sister. It has been asked in every forum that this idea has been shopped on what additional content would be added to a Malia article that does not already exist in the Family article, and that question has never been answered. --guyzero | talk 17:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC) I've answered that one before, and said no additional content would have to be added. Just look at the iterations of the Malia Obama article[23] that have already existed, though tons more cites do exist.--Milowent (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC) That she wore a twist hairstyle and had a fun birthday party seems like exactly the type of trivia we'd like to avoid. --guyzero | talk 19:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Nobody has time to read this long, long discussion. The bottom line is that she deserves an article according to the principles of Jimbo Wales. If people look her up and she has reports about her, then she is a fair topic as long as we don't BLP violate her. Good grief, will the anti-Obama people start to insist that Barack Obama must prove notability and that he should have an AFD? Let's stop attacking Obama and let there be a Malia article. This borders on a personal attack on Malia Obama. Editors who make personal attacks should be blocked. Mayor of Gotham City (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC) If you think there is any personal attack within this discussion, then take it to ANI. Don't toss around accusations, especially when you haven't bothered to read the discussion here or at Talk:Family of Barack Obama. --guyzero | talk 01:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Guyzero, some are attacking the subject matter, Malia, so ANI is laughable. Just like attacks on the United States by supporters of the article on the U.S. as a terrorist state. I've read the latest Talk:Family of Barack (thanks for the link). Proof that I can read is that here are the most recent comments... and the last few comments have all been supportive. If you don't agree, let's hear the argument, or do an RFC yourself. Binarybits (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC) and ... The last few comments by you and JohnK, yes - and I'm not at all saying others might not agree with you. I am saying there is no consensus for this here and I see a number of editors weighing in against it for a variety of reasons. So without a clear consensus to create the article - and, significantly, this idea has been raised here before more than once ...Tvoz/talk 17:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC). Mayor of Gotham City (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC) This is nonsense -- maintaining a redirect over an article is hardly an attack on the subject matter. --guyzero | talk 20:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC) I'm considering writing up a proposal to add recreation (and continual rehashing of the discussion about recreation) of this article to the Obama-related article probation. This has been discussed multiple times, in multiple forums. It's over now. Malia Obama is a redirect, and only a redirect. It's going to stay that way, until a clear consensus develops (combined with individual notability, not inherited notability) to change that. This discussion ha run it's course, and as such, I'm archiving it. 20:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Who collapsed this? Its unsigned. I see it was collapsed after yet another uninvolved editor came in to say "hey should she have an article." Good luck fighting that fight (against a separate article) forever.--Milowent (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Unless she does something independently notable, such acting, professional singing, or any one of the many other things by which a minor child can become notable (one of which is not simply being the daughter of a famous man), she will not have an article. The loudness of the complaints about this fact do not have any effect on who is right and who is wrong. UA 18:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Is it normal to collapse discussions like this? Why not wait until whatever the regular archiving schedule is (is there one?)--Milowent (talk) 07:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

  It's normal to collapse (or simply archive) discussions that are serving no real purpose, yes. This is one of those discussions. UA 16:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am the one responsible for collapsing the discussion. Unitanode collapsed it and wrote that he was archiving a rehashed and settle debate (paraphrasing it). I objected because the archiving policy for this board is clear but I only re-worded it to "collapsing discussion", taking out the word "archiving" and other words. Prematuring ending the discussion is actually the worse thing to do because it will only cast doubt on the discussion. The better thing to do would be to allow the usual automated archiving of this thread which will happen in about 7 days. It would clear away all doubt to uncollapse it but I won't do it as I've done enough housekeeping for this board. Ipromise (talk) 05:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the BLP noticeboard. From a BLP standpoint, there is no violation (let's hope that it says this way for all of Wikipedia). Ipromise (talk) 04:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at Barack, Michelle, Malia, etc. I see that Malia doesn't have an article. This is clearly wrong, not sure why there is such a fuss to shield her. If she is non-notable, then her name should be kept private but she is clearly notable, even her family parades her on TV and even gave an interview. The excuse of being a daughter is just an excuse. Look at Bo (dog). He is even less notable and has never even given an interview. If Malia is not allowed, then Bo, Millie (Bush dog), Socks (Clinton cat), Fala (FDR dog) should all be deleted--but this is silly to delete them. Malia is more notable than Sasha so there shouldn't be any question about Malia having an article.

Even if there is no concensus, the AFD default is to keep, not delete. Come on, folks, let's get real. Wikipedia is not a real encyclopedia without Malia. Midemer (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at List of living supercentenarians

Hello,

There is a dispute going on regarding whether or not gerontologist Robert Young's Yahoo! Group by itself is sufficient enough to debunk a claim that a living person is not the age that they claim to be. I do not personally feel that it is, and it has been removed in the past by myself and others, but I've been wrong a lot lately on Wikipedia, so I thought I'd bring it here and let the community decide. Robert can post here and give you his opinion himself. Personally I don't care enough anymore to say any more than this, but there should be an official consensus on whether or not it should be considered reliable enough for WP:BLP. The discussion is here. Cheers, CP 19:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: right now, I'm the world's leading expert. Wikipolicy on "verifiability" allows exceptions to be made if the person posting the material is an expert in the field. Further, it's not "original research" if the material is published elsewhere prior to Wikipedia.

The "original research" policy has been misused/abused for too long now: it's time to stop. Again, it's NOT "original research" as the research was not posted on Wikipedia, originally. How difficult is that to understand?Ryoung122 05:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The material must be published in a reliable source to be included in Wikipedia. A Yahoo! group does not count. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Let's take a look at WP: RS policies on "self-published" material:

Self-published sources Main articles: Self-published sources (online and paper) and WP:SELFPUB

Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used in limited circumstances, with caution:

   * When produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

By this definition, which has been on WP:RS in more or less the same form for YEARS, I am an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in this field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. For example:

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/rej.2009.0857

Thus, by definition, use of material from me could be used from "self-published" sources. The WOP group fits that criteria, as I control/moderate all comments and have for 7+ years.Ryoung122 15:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Can you show us evidence that there is substantial independent evidence for the groups reliability? Specifically, please note any citations by other reputable sources, and if you could, note any doubts expressed in reliable sources about the groups accuracy? Hipocrite (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear what the content is at the Yahoo group. Is it Robert Young's personal statements that he happens to self-publish in that forum, or is it some kind of crowd-sourced information that is gathered there? In the former case I'm not entirely sure that establishing the chronological age of various people is the sort of field for which experts exist in the sense meant here, as in say Greek language scholars being considered experts in Greek language. Here it is a simple question of the truth of various factual claims about people's ages, a question about which a particular person may be the most well-informed or determined, but where there are not (I assume, I may be wrong) all the trappings of peer-review journals, conferences, faculty appointments, professional honors, and so on. If there is no special standing to the field, then Wikipedia must get to the source rather than taking an expert's word for it. In the latter case, with few exceptions crowd-sourced sites are generally not accepted as reliable sources. As partial exceptions people do sometimes report content from IMDB, rottentomatoes, and metacritic for films, youtube for youtube hit counts, etc., but this is not uncontroversial and is generally done with an in-line attribution. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldnt think that a yahoo group by itself is a reliable source even with a "gerontologist" moderating the forumn, its still not a reliable source in that there is no editorial responsibility/liability. Young appears have a high standing within the field and his conclusions are published through 3rd parties like Guiness Book of Records, the yahoo page is similar to a discussion on an article talk page intersting in and of its self but not reliable as a source to which we could attribute any facts. Also note that if the age of the person is of dispute then there would be 3rd party media sources that would include such information to which we can attribute that the age of the BLP is disputed. Gnangarra 15:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a few extra eyes

• Susan Hutchison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dow Constantine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A high profile, very contentious political campaign in Seattle Washington (no small county this; this is the highest elected office in a county of over 2 million people) is heating up as November 3rd elections approach. The campaigns have gotten ugly, and not surprisingly this is spilling over into the articles. Currently, I believe they are neutral, but efforts by supporters & detractors attempting to control candidate's Wikipedia pages may have reached the point of extensive socking (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/He pled guilty). Both of these articles could really benefit from more watchers who don't care and can help ensure that they remain neutral. I suspect the situation will cool down after the dust settles following election day. If you have room on your watchlist, please consider keeping an eye out. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope. The dust didn't settle on Susan Hutchison. Currently, there's one tendentious editor making some borderline and some unacceptable alterations. In addition to adding unsourced controversial information, s/he is moving the "controversy" section to greater prominence (and this is where he or she is placing unsourced controversial information) and removing sourced positive material. See [24]. Help still needed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ian Plimer

An editor Ratel (talk · contribs) has written a reasonably large amount of negative material into the biography of the Australian Professor Ian Plimer's biography based on less than reliable sources.

1. A quote from an op-ed that Plimer is a "denialist poster-boy" has been added to the article's lead.
2. Plimer is said to have been a member of the NRSP, and the source given is a web archive (web.archive.org) dating to 2007. The page was subsequently deleted, I imagine after a number of these listed scientists complained.
3. There is quote mining to have the UK Guardian George Monbiot's op-ed name calling Plimer a "climate change denialist" in the following sentence Plimer challenged George Monbiot of The Guardian to a public debate on the issues covered in the book, after Monbiot criticised the book, calling Plimer a climate change denialist.[16] None of this is based on reliable sources. There is only one reliable source covering the Monbiot/Plimer confrontation, as far as I can see, but that source is pro-Plimer. I argue that the incident should either be dropped for insufficient coverage, or it should be based on reliable sources and an effort should be made to present Plimer's and Monbiot's actual arguments, rather than just the name calling.
4. A creationist Duane Gish is quoted in the article saying Gish accused [Plimer] of being theatrical, abusive and slanderous, calling it "the most disgusting performance I have ever witnessed in my life".[22] There is absolutely no need to include the view of a creationist here that Plimer is "disgusting".

There are some other problems and I think we're light years away from a proper encyclopaedic treatment of Plimer's life but I guess this could get things started.

See also Talk:Ian_Plimer#list_of_BLP_and_other_violations. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

1. The "denialist poster boy" comes from one of Australia's most well known and respected journalists, Phillip Adams, writing for a RS, The Australian. Other well known people to call Plimer a denialist are George Monbiot of The Guardian and an ex-leader of one of Australia's political parties, so it's hardly an unusual claim and is suitable for inclusion, per wp:SPADE.
2. The Internet archive (archive.org) is impeccably correct and has never been impugned at RS/N. Its archives of the NRSP's site are accurate and show that Plimer was listed as an associate, and this is also stated at the well known climate site DeSmogBlog [25] (source not used in article).
3. Monbiot's appellation of Plimer is not "quote mining". Monbiot, who is far more notable than Plimer, used the word "denialist" in several articles about Plimer, even in the headlines such as: "This professor of denial" and "Let battle commence! Climate change denialist ready for the fight" and "Why can't the champion of climate change denial face the music?". This IS from a reliable source, namely, Monbiot's column in The Guardian, and must be included in the bio since Plimer and Monbiot had an actual clash that has been documented on many sites on the web (see the Talk page for links).
4. Duane Gish's views of Plimer are most worthy of inclusion because Plimer wrote a book (Telling Lies for God) that has a whole chapter attacking Gish on a personal basis, calling him a liar and a fraud. Plimer should expect to see the responses of those he attacks quoted in his bio.

Editor Alex Harvey has been accused by others (not me) of forum shopping to get his way in his mission to defend and whitewash those who are part of the global warming denier cadre. He goes to noticeboards at the drop of a hat (I think this is the 4th time in 2 weeks). He refuses to wait for input from others on the Talk page, eschews RfCs in favor of noticeboards, and generally edits disruptively. ► RATEL ◄ 08:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for the opinion in the lede, especially the denialist poster boy slur, I have removed it. Off2riorob (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Thanks Off2riorob.
2. To add some clarification here, the internet archive is an archived copy of a page at a website (=WP:SPS) that was subsequently removed (I guess the reason being that some of those listed complained). It is therefore doubly unreliable. DeSmogBlog is, surprise, surprise, a blog.
3. Nothing to add.
4. Nothing to add.Alex Harvey (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The article also says he attacked various aspects of the Bible in one of his books. I noted on the talk page that this seems like unnecassarily provocative language. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been having a bit of a rest from this dispute but the issues haven't gone away. The article is still a terrible slur piece. And as one commenter has noted, for those that want to see Plimer brought down (and presumably burnt at the stake / locked up in a dungeon somewhere for his heretical climate change views) the article is actually having the reverse effect and serving as a page where Plimer's views are in an odd way promoted (I mean, not many readers are not so stupid as to not see the bias in this article, and once the bias is noted, one always wonders who is right and who is wrong). There is good cause for sensible editors on both sides of this dispute to help turn this article back into a neutral presentation of the facts.

The issue is not resolved. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Martin Landau

Martin Landau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An IP keeps changing his Date of Birth to 1931 against cited and reliable sources claiming iMDB and his grandma are better. As I pointed out sources indicate otherwise. // Q ^{T C} 08:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've given the IP a final warning (as they've been warned before on other matters and it was also made clear their edits were inappropriate). In future, it may be best in cases like this to just give warnings and if they don't stop, ask for them to be blocked on WP:ANI or WP:AIV if they ignore such warnings. (Technically warnings may not be necessary if you're clearly told them they need to stop, but it's helpful to have one to avoid any admins who feel they weren't sufficiently warned. You can safely ignore any requests not to edit their talk page (which belongs to the community) although editors are entitled to remove content from their talk page if they desire (it's taken as a sign it was read). Nil Einne (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I see the IP could easily have been given a WP:3RR warning too Nil Einne (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a source that says IMDB is not reliable? Maybe it is proper that some claim (does Martin Landau claim?) that he was born in 1931? From a BLP violation standpoint, there doesn't seem to be a major violation. Ipromise (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

IMDB has routinely been found not to be RS by WP standards. See WP:Citing IMDb proposal, and innumerable RS/N queries where it is deemed non-RS. Collect (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Toru Goto (religious persecution)

He is a Japanese Unification Church member who was held against his will by his family for 12 years. The article has few sources and only gives his side, not his family's -- who are also living persons of course. He is also filing a lawsuit against them, it seems. Redddogg (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. This article is really a mess. I am a UC member and on Mr. Goto's "side." However the article mentions a "deprogramer" by name and accuses him of serious crimes, without sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Now nominated for deletion. Redddogg (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The parenthetical portion of the title is a terrible choice. Even if this article is kept, it should be renamed. I'm not aware of any other biography which is classified as "(religious persecution)". *** Crotalus *** 16:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure "deprogramming subject" is any better, and it should probably not have been renamed while the Afd discussion was in progress. – ukexpat (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: It is also possible that WP:BLP1E would apply here as well. Cirt (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• In an odd twist of events. Cirt has started an article on Daniel Fefferman, one of the editors involved in this dispute. Redddogg (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That is unusual, however Cirt's article on Dan is not bad. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you! :) Cirt (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

2009 Richmond High School gang rape

Experienced BLP-sensitive eyes desperately need at the article. I had been attempting to assist, but simply don't have time available right now, and probably won't for the next couple of days. High profile story, especially in California, and attracting well-meaning but inexperienced editors who need assistance. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, messy. Shouldn't the article be in some place like a news place? Off2riorob (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've AFDd it. It belongs on WikiNews. Black Kite 14:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There may be several issues, but the BLP question has not been violated because no names of the suspects or victim has been released. Let's keep it (names) off Wikipedia until there is a complete and lengthy discussion. Ipromise (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Karl Rove

The last paragraph of the lede paragraph for a while has read as follows:

Rove's name has come up in a number of political scandals. These include the Valerie Plame affair, the Bush White House e-mail controversy and the related dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, among others. To date, no charges have been filed against Rove for any of his alleged illegal activities.

Several editors (myself included) have raised concerns about the bolded part of the paragraph. The paragraph has since been changed, but other editors have raised the possibility of restoring it. Does the bold sentence violate WP:BLP? Soxwon (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Rove is very controversial so supporters may be opposed to the language and opponents in support of it. If the sentence considered is "to date, no charges have been filed against ____ for any of his alleged illegal activities", then this may be considered more objectively. There are politicians of both parties whose names could be inserted, just google some politician scandals. The bottom line is that adding "for any of his alleged illegal activities" does make it a BLP violation. Ipromise (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

As the author of the original paragraph, which stood from last summer until a few days ago, the intent was to find a middle ground. Rove is, as I understand it, under active investigation, hence the wording. Please see the current Rove talk page for more information. Archive 7 and 8 shows some of the turmoil from the era, and my current talk page also has recent material regarding this. Best, Jusdafax 07:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I took the phrase out. As a neutral from the UK I thought it was weasely and speculative and opinionated and does not belong in the lede at all. if as Justafax claims that the guy is actually under current specific investigation then details of the specifics could be added to the body of the article but to have such an open, unspecific comment in the lede is awful (imo). What are these alleged illegal activities? Who is investigating him and what are these people investigating him about? When will the investigation (if there is one) end? How jolly mysterious. Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have answered these concerns in exchanges with this user on my talk page and the Rove talk page, but the user has stated they refuse to google anything or look into the archives. In addition the user appears to me (and after the events of last summer, I admit to sensitivity) to be using terms both above, and elsewhere, that approach or cross over the limits of what I understand to be WP:BAIT. Thanks, Jusdafax 15:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, this issue is fairly straightforward. Do we have a reliable source saying "no charges have ever been filed against Rove", or something roughly equivalent to that? If so, then it is probably a good idea to include it. If not, then it should be omitted, because such a contention would then constitute original research. We need to go with what the sources say. *** Crotalus *** 16:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Firstly I find User Justafax's comments about me regarding WP:BAIT without any foundation at all and shows from him a complete lack of good faith.

I found this at [26]

"On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

"In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that the Special Counsel’s decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove’s conduct." Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Stale - That article is well over three years old, and is not relevant to the current matter. Again, I have given Off2riorob specific information regarding this, which the user chooses to ignore. I will now paste some of the material from the Rove talk page to this one to demonstrate this. Begin paste

Again, on Aug. 13, the New York Tmes says this: "Congress must continue its investigation into the firing of top prosecutors and call Karl Rove and others to testify so the American people can hear how the justice system was hijacked." Try googling 'Nora Dannehy' and any combination of 'Rove' or 'attorneys firing' for more information on an ongoing investigation. It's my view that 'To date' stands, by Wikipedia standards. Jusdafax 00:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It is still not required to be in the lede. I am not going to google anything, all I care about is the weasel pov opinionated edit in the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Would I be correct in saying that you support this edit and don't want to change a word of it? Off2riorob (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I wrote the paragraph you object to. Frankly, I see it as a compromise between those who would word it much more strongly, and those who don't want mention of Mr. Rove's ongoing legal issues at all (however, remember, he had to testify before the U.S. Congress earlier this year.) I'm open to discussion within reason, but I think by any reasonable standard, you fail to make a case.

To recap: Rove is being investigated at the current time by a U.S. Prosecutor, Nora Dannehy. Now I know you say you won't google anything, so how about clicking on her link? It shows who she is, and what she's investigating. Now click on this link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/opinion/13thu2.html which mentions Rove as a player in the investigations, based on his testimony before Congress.

The day Rove is either cleared, or charged with a crime, is the day we can remove this moderate paragraph. At least, that's how I see it.

End paste

This pasted material demonstrates that we are going in circles here. The person who brought this issue back to this page, User:Soxwon, was warned in September warned for edit-warring on Rove's page. It seems, to me, given the edit histories of both Soxwon and Off2RioRob, that we have long since reached a point of diminishing returns on this issue. I ask for a speedy decision here so that the issue can move forward. Best, Jusdafax 18:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your attempting to point the issue at other editors and not at the edit is very bad faith. You have not answered any of the issues regarding this actual edit, I will add it here so that people can see the actual edit under discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Rove's name has come up in a number of political scandals. These include the Valerie Plame affair, the Bush White House e-mail controversy and the related dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, among others. To date, no charges have been filed against Rove for any of his alleged illegal activities.

this is what I edited to...

Rove's name has come up in a number of political scandals, including the Valerie Plame affair, the Bush White House e-mail controversy and the related dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy .

It is a good edit made in good faith. Off2riorob (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel it's important to add (for the casual reader) that Off2riorob fails to discuss any of the points I have just made, and in my view, for the obvious reason that they are facts, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be all about. Jusdafax 18:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Jusdafax please discuss content, not contributors. I was advised to bring this here by another neutral editor and await an outside opinion. I advise Off2riorob and you to do the same. Soxwon (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Your link provided to support this opinionated edit in the lede of the article, this one is an opinion piece with nothing of any weight to support your edit. I also note that your edit has no support here at all. Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Absent any word in a RS of an 'actual investigation aimed at Rove, the sentences are on the order of "John Doe has never said when he stopped beating his wife." Clinton does not have such a list of claimed crimes sans any investigations, to be sure, and so Rove ought not.

To resume...

The investigation of Rove and the 2006 attorney firings is ongoing. (The link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/14/AR2009051402816.html ) as this Washington Post article (Prosecutor To Interview Rove Today, Sources Say) notes.

Then there is http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/15/rove.attorneys/index.html this CNN reference on Rove's interview the day after. For clarity, I paste some of this below:

• Rove questioned about U.S. attorney firings - Story Highlights

• NEW: Karl Rove questioned for 3½-plus hours on 2006 firings of U.S. attorneys

• NEW: Rove's attorney: "He intends to fully cooperate with the investigation"

• Justice Department report found that some firings were influenced by politics

• Special prosecutor trying to determine if any ex-Bush officials broke any laws.

Again, the Karl Rove Wikipedia article lede final sentence, which I now strongly suggest returning to the lede as timely, informative and meets WP:RS requirements, reads:

To date, no charges have been filed against Rove for any of his alleged illegal activities. Rove continues under investigation by special prosecutor Nora Dannehy.

In August, Rove was named in a U.S. House investigation. "Harriet Miers, then White House counsel, said in testimony June 15 to House Judiciary Committee investigators that Rove was "very agitated" over U.S. Attorney David Iglesias "and wanted something done about it."

• The link: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/08/12/2009-08-12_george_bush_adviser_karl_roves_role_in_firing_us_attorney_detailed_in_newly_rele.html

• NBC covered the story. The link: http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/archive/NATLKarl-Rove-to-be-Interviewed-in-Criminal-Probe.html?corder=regular

Conclusion: Rove continues under investigation by both Ms. Dannehy and U.S. Congress. He has neither been charged nor cleared. Jusdafax 00:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• It is still not worthy of inclusion in the lede. If he is still under investigation add it to the body of the article with all the details, where it can be rebutted and defended as desired or required. Off2riorob (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Dennis Ketcham

• Dennis Ketcham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dennis Ketcham inspired Dennis the Menace (U.S.) at the age of 4. However, he doesn't appear to have any other notability and I'm not sure we should have an article detailing the woes of this otherwise private person (given BLP1E).

I bring this up here because the article talk page obviously gets very little traffic, and I'm not sure (before asking here) whether it should be nominated for deletion. Please advise. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Boldly redirected to the only thing he's famous for. Hipocrite (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Needs more eyes. A user who dislikes my contributions elsewhere is trying to goad me into an edit war over this transparent BLP violation. Hipocrite (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no cabal. Neuromancer (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Watchlisted.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

World Football Daily

World Football Daily (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – I know it's not a bio article per se, but this article has had repeated disputes with a minority insisting that certain information about the hosts and the show not be included, while simultaneously insisting that inflammatory remarks by host Steven Cohen be included. We're long past WP:3RR, but I didn't want to request a block and thereby further incite anyone. –JohnnyPolo24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Joni Eareckson Tada

I brought my concerns with this article up here a couple months ago but did not receive any input, so I'm giving it another shot. This article has many issues, most notably it appears to be essentially a PR piece for Joni Eerekson Tata. My main concern is with the lack of reliable sources and the tone. Given the subjec matter, I'm worried that if I start single handedly cutting out unsourced or POV commentary from the article it won't be appreciated by her large following. I brought up my concerns with the neutrality of the article on the talk page in September, but no one has commented. Is there anyone here who could read over the article and help cut back the worst of the puffery and POV comments? Any suggestions? --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 17:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Really what should happen is sources found, which shouldn't be too hard, and the article rewritten.Steve Dufour (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thomas A. Tarrants

There are some pretty strong allegations in the Thomas A. Tarrants article and it is completely unsourced. Should it be speedy deleted under G10 or is it salvageable? Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 21:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. The standard procedure is for BLP violations to be removed until sourced. Since it's a new article, that means deleting it. It can be undeleted if sources are provided. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I generally try to add references to biography articles when patrolling the New Pages backlog, but in this case it seemed predominantly negative and I wasn't sure it should even remain given its current state. I will simply tag any similar articles for speedy moving forward. I'm surprised it lasted a month! --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 21:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Todd English

A number of unsourced derogatory comments about Todd English have been added over the past few hours. Below are urls to diffs illustrating these change, which appear to violate your policies on such matters. Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Todd_English&action=historysubmit&diff=324206668&oldid=324172933 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Todd_English&action=historysubmit&diff=324206668&oldid=323340582 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvogeljr (talk • contribs) 05:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any problems like that, so probably removed. The whole artice desperately needs to be rewritten however. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the least of its problems - the article is a complete dog's breakfast, a humongous spam-fest, and needs to be heavily edited into an encyclopedic article. In any event the BLP violations have been reverted. – ukexpat (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100%!!! BTW when did chefs become such celebrities/controversial people? Steve Dufour (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Fort Hood shooting

Several editors want to state as fact that the accused shooter is guilty, and have removed "alleged" as a descriptor, which I see as required by WP:BLP when there has as been no trial and no confession. A second effort was to say that "according to authorities" an individual is the shooter, which again constitutes an unacceptable presumption of guilt. The preliminary nature of the press coverage is shown by the fact that earlier in the day the main suspect was said to be shot dead, only to come back to life, and that two others were said also to be shooters, only to be exonerated. Some eyes on the article would be welcome. Also seeTalk:Fort Hood shooting#Allegedly". Edison (talk) 06:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiCrime is pretty fussy about this, and since it's general practice (and law, but not the focus on Wiki) to use "Alleged" it's entirely inappropriate to remove it. "Police say" and the like is used with deceased persons who never stood trial; Lee Harvey Oswald and Chris Benoit being famous and much-argued precedents, respectively. It's pretty much the worst type of BLP violation imaginable to state in clear text that someone is guilty of murder if not convicted, and even if a guilty plea is ever given in court it's still not official until a judge accepts that and goes to sentencing. Arguments like "it has to be" or no matter how obvious it may or may not be are meaningless... it's just how it's done. When this started I got protection for the article of the full proper name of the suspect but that'll be up in 2 days and there's going to be a massive mess of things being created to get in its place as a separate article aside from the incident itself. There are about 20 name variant redirects and I suppose those will all need to be grouped up bulk redirect or deletion/salting. Edison-- if you have any ideas on how you're hoping to keep an eye on all these articles, leave me a message. When the incident article page is unprotected that'll be a mess, too. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hooshang Heshmat

Claims of notability for the academic Hooshang Heshmat are not supported by any reliable secondary sources. This article could be saved from deletion if sources can be found, but if not, what should be the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hooshang Heshmat? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The outcome of the Afd discussion is in the hands of the admin who reviews it when its time has run. – ukexpat (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Max B

Resolved

There is a dispute between myself and JBSupreme at Max B as to whether using the official online records of Bergen County Sherriff's Dept. and those of the Department of Correctional Services, New York State to source the subject's DOB constitutes WP:OR. Views please. See article history from Nov 3 on for dispute. 86.44.58.6 (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

To cut through some of the history to the refs in question: [27] is the official lookup tool of the dept. (from the sidebar at http://www.bcsd.us/ ). Name search "Charly Wingate" with box checked (his alias is provided in the record). http://nysdocslookup.docs.state.ny.us/GCA00P00/WIQ3/WINQ130 is a supplementary ref from an earlier conviction. The subject's real name and convictions are supported by third party reporting, these are just for the DOB. 86.44.58.6 (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is akin to walking into the hospital for birth records. If a third party publication has not reported on the date of birth neither should we. Sorry dude but this really is the textbook definition of original research. P.S. please log in with your real account next time. JBsupreme (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to me to characterize this as OR; the only question is whether including such info in a BLP is appropriate weighting. Looie496 (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh, like I just said, this fits the TEXTBOOK DEFINITION of original research. If you have to go to the Bergen County Sherriff's database and then cross reference it against other criminal records to make sure you have the right "Charly Wingate" then you're overstepping your bounds as an editor on Wikipedia. We cite reliable third party publications here, especially when dealing with biographies of living people. We do NOT, I repeat, ABSOLUTELY do not go out of our way to dig up information in criminal databases in order to, AHEM, RESEARCH, a date of birth! JBsupreme (talk) 08:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If those records exist - and they apparently do - they are a perfectly valid primary source for the information. There's no OR in that at all. Original Research consists of substituting our own opinion or work instead of finding independent reliable verifyable facts or externally reliably published opinions to cite. Those records are reliable sources by our standards - published and maintained by government agencies, etc. We don't need a secondary source to quote them to use them, as far as they are just reporting facts.

Regarding appropriateness in the article - that's a different question, and one which we should err on the side of leaving out if other sources don't include it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

All we are talking about is the date of birth, I don't see how or where appropriateness comes into it? 86.44.26.158 (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[jibe removed, with apologies] 86.44.26.158 (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Precedent on WP is that court records, although primary sources, ought not be used in articles. [28] states one reason why court records which are used for (say) DOB are bad for use in WP because they will therefore also inject material not suited per WP:BLP. In the case at hand, use of a court record does not simply verify DOB but provides material not otherwise usable in a BLP. There is no way to use a court record for a simgle clean fact, hence it can not be used. Collect (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever about your logic or your characterization of that discussion, these are not court records - please check the given links. 86.44.26.158 (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the issue of BLP was brought up, it would be helpful to read WP:BLP. In particular in terms of birthdates it says:

Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known persons where the dates:

• have been published in one or more reliable sources linked to the persons such that it may reasonably be inferred that the persons do not object to their release; or
• have otherwise been widely published.

It's quite clear the sources currently don't meet either of these criteria. In terms of primary sources it says:

Exercise great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details—such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses—or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability.

I'm not seeing any evidence this source has been cited by another secondary source. As it stands therefore, it appears that those trying to include the birthdate have violated BLP in two different ways. In fact, from my experience at WP:BLP/N this is one of the more obvious violations since it's directly address in policy (other then unsourced nonsense) even if some of the explainations were not perfect. Nil Einne (talk) 10:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right. The thinking behind it seems very weak to me: from the policy page, "With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private." If their DOB is a matter of public record I cannot see that there can be any expectation of that, and using a public record vs. waiting for a newspaper to do so seems a meaningless distinction. But that is policy. 86.44.19.103 (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

not perfect isn't the same as wrong. 86.44.19.103 (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Anya Ayoung-Chee

Anya Ayoung-Chee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Look at the history of this article since November 5th. There's a quiet battle been fought between a number of anons and newbies inserting and removing some uncited allegations that, regardless of any truth, are highly defamatory. Just a heads-up that this should be watchlisted by more people. • Anakin ^(talk) 18:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Would protection against edits by new or anonymous editors be warranted, do you think? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Just visited the page and absolutely it would. Requesting. 86.44.26.158 (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Jake Wartenberg (talk · contribs) has protected it for a month. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

There was a discussion about possible BLP violations in the article List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.[29] I pointed out that according to BLP, self-published sources may only be used if "it does not involve claims about third parties". All of the self-published sources included on the list directly criticize the scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) panel (ie. third parties) who've stated the scientific assessment in a report. See the list's lede, it's basically what the list is about. All the quotations are criticisms of the scientists on that panel and their findings. A random find-on-page for the word "blog" shows that source #44 fails this part of BLP. Find the statement by Syun-Ichi Akasofu that source #44 supports and you'll see several claims made about third parties. There's other self-published sources in the list as well, source #44 is just an example.

I am looking for feedback from the greater Wikipedia community on whether this constitutes a BLP violation per Wikipedia:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published_source Criteria #2. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a weird complaints, or rather several ones mashed in one. Most of the "self-published" sources and blogs are not used to make claims about third parties (and, btw, the IPCC is not a LP, so that would be outside the scope of the BLP policy), but rather as sources on the subjects own opinion per WP:SELFPUB. If other cases remain, please list them outside the above blanket statement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The IPCC is literally a panel of living persons, but more to the point: Criteria #2 isn't about the person in the biography, it's about their reliability to make statements about third parties in a self-published source. It's basically: They can reliably state things about themselves, but they can't reliably state things about others, because it's WP:SELFPUB. All the reliability issues WP:SELFPUB tries to avoid are included in the list under the guise that it's just their view about themselves. But it's not. It's their view on the third party of the IPCC (and sometimes the individual scientists who make up the IPCC). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• The way I understand WP policy a person's views would have to be commented on in secondary published sources, not just mentioned in his or her or another person's blog. I didn't see any major problems with sourcing in the article, although there might be a few. The list was a little weird though. People with views from "the world is really cooling" to "global warming is a good thing" are all included together. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• "The IPCC is literally a panel of living person" - well, by that argument BLP also applies to the government of the US, Exxon Mobile, the Church of Scientology, and Al-Qaeda. BLP protects individuals, not groups. As for the rest, let me repeat: The sources are not used to make claims about third parties. X says Y about Z is a claim about X, not a claim about Z. Self-published sources by X are usually acceptable as sources for statements by X. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone is reliable to comment on the US, Exxon Mobile, the Church of Scientology, or Al-Qaeda. Statements by X about Z are usually unacceptable if they are in a self published source. They're only included here under the guise that X's comment about Z is really about X, but that doesn't make any sense. If a person says the IPCC's statements are erroneous, that comment is about the IPCC, not themselves. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, not everyone is reliable to comment on the US, Exxon Mobile, the Church of Scientology, or Al-Qaeda. But none of those are BLP matters. I will repeat it once again. WE don't make statements about the IPCC. WE make statements about what person X has said. For that purpose, self-published sources by person X are ok. Even if person X says outrageous things about the Pope or Jerry Falwell's mother. I wont necessarily repeat this over and over again - if you stick to the same point, just assume it done. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that it isn't about what WE claim. Criteria #2 is about whether the SELF PUBLISHED MATERIAL involves claims about third parties. IT does, and we quote it verbatim. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying this is an issue for the WP:RS/N rather than the BLP/N? I only came here because Kim suggested this is the correct place. If not, should this be taken there instead? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No. I'm saying you are wrong, your interpretation of policy is wrong, and you dragging this from hither to yonder without replying substantially to points made will not change this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have replied substantially to your points. You disagree. Fine, let others chime in. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If I may chime in, I agree that the use of self-published sources is not a BLP violation in this case because, as Stephan Schulz states, the IPCC is not a person. Some types of self-published sources may be a mistake in this article for other reasons, but that debate is not for this forum. I do have a big BLP concern with this list. My concern is that the "weird" (as Steve Dufour writes above) nature of the list's subdivisions and inclusion criteria are so arbitrary that inclusion, exclusion, and subcategorization--and their potential impacts on the people listed and not listed--is based on what a group of Wikipedia editors think is important instead of on the person's actual viewpoint relative to IPCC views. However, the list in question was the recent subject of a no-consensus AfD, and emotions seem to be running high on the talk page and elsewhere at the moment, so I'm not sure now is the best time to use this noticeboard--or at least, it's not the best time for me to use it. I hope experts at BLP feel free to chime in on the list's talk page in a week or so when cooler heads may prevail. Flying Jazz (talk) 06:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. You've missed something. Unless the scientists' statements specify that they oppose the IPCC consensens, or an external reliable source does, it is WP:OR and a WP:BLP violation to place them on the list. The fact that the statements appear to disagree with the IPCC consensus, in the opinion of the adding editor, is not adequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Stephan Schulz above. Also, that statements appear to disagree (or agree) in the judgment of the editor, and the consensus of editors, is quite adequate for inclusion and not a violation of NOR or BLP, and is what we do in every article in Wikipedia. Wikipedia would be impossible to write if every source needed a second source to say that the first source said what it obviously (by consensus) said. And why would we not need a third source to say that the second source really did say that the first source said what it seemed to say, etc?John Z (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY, as it related to WP:BLP, means we may not interpret a statement made by a living person. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Correct. That is another issue that has been raised. If my argument isn't a BLP issue, certainly that one is. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 12:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A common misuse of WP:PRIMARY. It states "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." If the person's statement and the IPCC's statement can be placed alongside each other and the contradiction can be readily identified, then there is no "interpretation". Rd232 ^talk 13:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rd232's assessment about Arthur Rubin's objection. Contradictions can be readily identified. If this really were a list of opponents to IPCC statements instead of a list of opponents to an arbitrarily-defined subset of IPCC statements (that a group of editors here think are the only really important ones relevant to global warming), then I would not have a BLP issue. Flying Jazz (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP issue. This is yet another piece of the long fallout from the AFD on this article, with some editors who failed to get their way there going through increasingly bizarre wikilawyering. It looks like they have become emotionally attached to their desires on this article and can't let it go William M. Connolley (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

sez you. Flying Jazz (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it this way.

• In an article about X, we cannot say that "X opposes the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" unless X or some WP:RS says that. We could not do it based only on X's statement which differs from a signficant point of the IPCC assessment.
• Why is the list different?

And it should be in the BLP board because otherwise the (now redacted) list of 700 from the Congressional Record would be a legitimate source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the list of 700 would never be a reliable source to anything other that Marc Morano's (and possibly Inhofe's) opinion. You are confusing things. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment My understanding is that WP:BLP policies apply to every article, and everything else on WP. Living persons are certainly involved here where a person's career could be harmed by being on the wrong list. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing that BLP applies to the list... it most certainly does. And your example is very much the reason that inclusion into the article isn't just accepted. We need a clear unambiguous quote, that directly contradicts the premises for the list, the person also has to be notable per Wikipedias notability criteria (which is why we do not allow red-links).

The discussion here is about subtleties in interpretation of BLP. The original claim here is that we cannot use a self-published quote from a scientists if he anywhere in his text mentions something that can be indirectly related to another living person. Here that indirect link is that the IPCC is a panel of scientists, and that the texts criticizes the IPCC therefore BLP disallows usage of the text. A rather novel interpretation to my view. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a discussion of any possible BLP violation in the list, not just the one I asked about. It's a request for outside independent eyes. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that requesting independent eyes is good. Hope you don't mind me saying this, but trying to have a discussion about "any possible" violation might be...less good. Flying Jazz (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Suggestion How about a new policy: "WP is not an enemies list"? Steve Dufour (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That policy, like most others, would certainly give us a tool to try to poke each other with when we're too lazy or cranky or exasperated to engage with each other about detailed issues on a talk page. Flying Jazz (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to Rd232. That's exactly what has not been done. Many of the scientists in the "has not been established" or "cause unknonwn" classes are claimed to oppose an IPCC conclusion that something is "likely". There is not necessarily a contradiction or opposition there. If the classes where IPCC makes a definative conclusion, and a scientist makes a statement which contradicts that statement, and (this has not been checked, as far as I know), the scientist's statement was made after the IPCC paper, then the argument might be acceptable. I still don't think it is, but that could be handled adequately by making definitions clear in the lede of the article. As it stands, if IPCC said "likely" and a scientist said "unknown", there's no conflict. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

  Short comment: Quotes are checked for whether the statement is made after the IPCC report. If they aren't then the quote can't be used. And "likely" is a certainty estimate (in this case: 66-90% chanceSPM footnote 7) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

J. Z. Knight

The article about J. Z. Knight had 13 successive edits of deliberate vandalism by User:Dreadlight. Angryapathy (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any problems. The intro should be rewritten so it is about her importance, not about the claims she makes to supernatural communication -- not that that couldn't be true but WP is written for (and about) people in this world. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I removed the vandalism, but the user put items in like, "JZ has been know to channel Satan and Hitler," among many other acts of vandalism. See the diffs [30]. Angryapathy (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

List of mass murderers

The back end of new pages patrol occasionally turns up something that's difficult to assess properly in a short time. This appears to be a carefully referenced list, but was uncategorized. Could use a review by a few more sets of eyes to make certain it's compliant with WP:BLP. Durova³⁶⁰ 18:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• List of mass murderers and spree killers by number of victims: Workplace killings

Daniela Santanchè

Daniela Santanchè (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - inaccurate information, insults, no references. she is an prominent italian politician, i read the word idiot in the article, is not encyclopedic..

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniela_Santanchè&diff=324762689&oldid=324685689

I've removed the "idiot" comment. I don't know if there are any other inaccuracies in the article, but it looks like more sources are needed. snigbrook (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed more, including an image. The sourcing here sucks.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Dan Fefferman

Differences of opinion on what material to include or not. I am a personal friend of the subject so other opinions are needed. Thanks. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Note the article makes use of multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In the words of Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) (higher up on this same noticeboard), Cirt's article on Dan is not bad.. Cirt (talk) 05:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

But Dan himself is not notable by WP's official standards and the article is nominated for deletion. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Fefferman.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: "Cry BLP" blocks

Please read and comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal: "Cry BLP" blocks. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I made my comment, however WP policies on civility prevented me from expressing the full depth of my feelings on the issue. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth Lambert (soccer)

Resolved

 – article deleted per WP:BLP1E. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone more knowledgeable than me have a look? This article is completely unsourced. I thought I was in the right by stubifying it, but I've been reverted twice. The article is currently at AFD and will likely be gone in a few days anyway, so I guess it doesn't make a big difference either way, but I'm just curious as to whether I was doing the right thing or not. 71.162.20.205 (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

IP editing text claiming at behest of subject at Albert Stubblebine

See [31] - the edit summary removing these accurately cited texts reads "At General Stubblebine request this violation of Wikipedia' policy on biographies of living persons was removed as he said it libelous and misrepresentative of the actual events and remarks made.". There's obviously COI, but my concern right now is that the sources are reliable sources from our viewpoint and I have no reason to see they are misrepresentative. If there is libel in the book or article I don't understand why he hasn't sued. I've reverted once already but I'm bringing it here for other input. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The material that is being removed is supported by a reliable source (a book review in the Guardian, at this link), but it's easy to see how the article's subject could be offended by that material -- and by the whole article. The article consists largely of a string of factoids that, taken together, make him out to be a crackpot. The factoid about belief in walking through walls is one of many isolated factoids that might(?) seem less ridiculous if there were some more context for it. Let's not restore it until there's more context for it.
I've added some material about his military career (to provide a bit of balance) and I've marked several facts in the article that are not supported by citations (and should be deleted if they are not sourced soon). In addition to sourcing, some additional expansion and rewriting are needed to put the factoids in better context. --Orlady (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I can understand why Stubblebine might not want it in his article, but that isn't our problem. Here's a recent article in the UK's Daily Telegraph, a respectable newspaper and a reliable source (although I prefer the Guardian) [32]. I'm sure he doesn't like it either. But it is these beliefs and behavior that make him particularly notable (and the recent film has brought him back in the news), and I think they need to be in the article. I like this bit "in his mind, there was never any doubt that the ability to pass through solid objects would one day be a common tool in the intelligence-gathering arsenal. Nonetheless, he was continuously frustrated by his own, rather embarrassing, lack of success.'I still think it's a great idea,' says General Stubblebine. 'I simply kept bumping my nose. It's a disappointment - just like levitation.' Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying the information should be excluded, but it needs to be discussed in context. The context, as near as I can determine from the very limited research I have done, is that he believes that humans have many psychic powers that could be very advantageous to the military, if only they were appropriately investigated. The Ronson book (which can be previewed online at Google books) discusses his idea about walking through walls at some length -- and in the context of these other beliefs. Present the full story of his beliefs and views, not a few isolated quotations about specific odd beliefs. --Orlady (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have a clear idea of what you want, why not do that yourself? Dougweller (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

By posting here, you were asking for administrators (and others) to comment on the BLP issue in an article of interest to you. The fact that I responded to your request does not obligate me to research the topic and rewrite the article for you. --Orlady (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the material re. walking through walls on the grounds that the reference cited, a major British newspaper, easily meets the bar for WP:RS. Moreover, an unconfirmed indication that the subject might object to this statement is not grounds for removal on WP. If the subject does object, he can do so by utilising the protocols at WP:BLPHELP, which are specifically designed for situations such as this.Vitaminman (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph, and it should be left out until consensus is reached on how this information (or allegation) should be included, if at all. Some information available on the internet (not meeting WP:RS criteria) suggests that that the presentation in the Guardian article does not provide relevant context. (It's written in non-journalistic style anyway, as it does not indicate whether the Ronson or the article's author actually support the allegation.) It might just as well be gossip that Stubblebine felt was too ridiculous to merit some kind of formal denial. Such BLP sensitive information should always be based on more than one source.  Cs32en  00:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Question: If enumerating his various (well-sourced) views "makes him out to be a crackpot", where's the problem? Crackpots exist. If this guy's views paint him as what he is, why is that a problem? UA 01:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we need to be cautious of material only sourced by the book, with an eye to BLP and NPOV. The Guardian article is just a book review, after all, correct? However, if his prominence in the book is a part of his notability, then it deserves some mention. --Ronz (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Much of the Ronson book is available online. He is discussed extensively in that book. If an interested Wikipedian were to read the book, they should be able to provide a good discussion of Stubblebine's views. The single flip remark about him that was included in the Guardian book review may be true, but that one fact is not presented in the context that the full book provides. --Orlady (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I also linked to a Telegraph Daily Mail article which gives some context. Yes Orlady I asked for comment and you provided it. You also edited the article and removed what appears to be key information about the subject. I still think that when you did that and showed you had some idea what you thought should be there that shrugging aside all other responsibility is not the way to go. I for one don't want to find myself in a position where I add something and all you do is remove it because it isn't what you think should be there. Why can't we use the Telegraph Daily Mail article? Dougweller (talk) 06:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There are actually numerous articles in publications that conform to WP:RS in which the walking-through-walls issue is mentioned. Here's another one: [33] Stubblebine's prominence in Ronson's book - which itself can be regarded as a WP:RS - is indeed a part of his notability and most certainly deserves mention.Vitaminman (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Brittny Gastineau & Bruno

More eyes would be appreciated over at Brittny Gastineau. Two editors continue to insert unsourced details about her appearance in the Bruno movie, including her comments on Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy. Since these comments are taken with no context whatsoever, it certainly seems like a case of WP:UNDUE and editors attempting to post "the truth" about her, as seen in edit summaries here [34] [35].

The article was recently semi-protected to prevent an IP from putting the material on the page, as soon as the protection was lifted, the editors reinserted it. I've tried to have a discussion on the talk page, but no one appears interested in discussing the notability or context of the quote. Other eyes and opinions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Dayewalker is the only one uninterested in discussing the notability or context of the quote, which is sourced because it is directly from the movie. The movie is the source. I have argued why it should be there with reasons to support my argument. He has simply stated that it should not be there and offers no reasons to support his opinion. Also, this information was on the article for an extended period of time until recently an editor started removing it. So I have actually been re-inserting previously presented information, not inserting new information. 128.104.truth (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The material is clearly being included to show Gastineau in a negative light, and as it is unsourced it must be removed. What sourcing from the movie does not tell us is how important this is in describing Gastineau. To me, it seems like undue weight to a minor event. Kevin (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is somehow notable it should be covered by some WP:RS. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as someone uninvolved in this particular dispute, I think that the sourcing policy involving direct citations to creative works (movies, books, TV shows, etc) is often interpreted inappropriately. While such citations are appropriate for content involving in-universe aspects of fictional works, they are not appropriate for verifying "real-world" claims. They amount to no more than an editor's assertion that "I read it in a book" or "I saw it on TV," or something similar. An in-universe claim about a fictional character is quite unlikely to result in harm to any real person, so the usual cautions about original research and primary sourcing can be less restrictive; when a real person is involved; WP:BLP and the principles behind it require stronger, more reliable sourcing than an editor's assertion/recollection. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC) (copied by HW from earlier discussion of the article, above)

Mark Levin/David Frum

In response to one sentence of criticism by David Frum placed in the Mark Levin article, SPA User:Malvenue has inserted a two paragraph screed in both the Levin and Frum articles. Request assistance and intervention in dealing with an editor not acting in good faith. Gamaliel (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

How about some diffs so we'll know what sentences and paragraphs you are referring to? CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Audley Harrison

Based on a discussion at WikiProject Boxing, Vintagekits added several derogatory (sourced) nicknames to the Audley Harrison article. It was reverted by two editors who disagreed with the addition, and the case was brought to AN/I.

I restored the previous version and protected the page for 3 days. IMO this brings up BLP problems, but I'd rather remain a neutral admin and simply initiate a discussion. The WT:BOXING "consensus" that VK cites only involves 5 users agreeing at a project level. This edit was clearly contested by others, so I'm opening a thread here for centralized discussion. Uninvolved opinions would be welcome. JamieS93 20:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment A limit of 2-nicknames in the Infobox per boxer's article, would be acceptable (with consent reached at each boxer's article). GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Nicknames should not appear in the infobox if they do not appear in the main body of the article. Otherwise, they should be highly, highly significant and mentioned in multiple independent sources, because, to satisfy BLP, we need the best possible sources for things like nicknames. --John (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames and other information not mentioned elsewhere in an article is often included in an infobox. This is not a problem. Usual standards for verifiability apply. I think the issue is whether including multiple derogatory nicknames would give undue weight to a particular viewpoint.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

John, so if nicknames are mentioned in the body of the article and have multiple reliable sources then they should be in the infobox?--Vintagekits (talk) 10:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I say include the nicknames in the Harrison article. I think it is poor form that because Off2riorob thinks his owns the BLP noticeboard that we are discussing this again and that we are overruling WP:NPOV, WP:RS and the Boxing Project with regard this piece of boxing information - I am also a little disappointed that the editor that opened this discussion did not contact each of the parties involved on the Audley Harrison talkpage and the Boxing Project to inform them that this discussion is going on.

Without doubt nicknames are a central piece of information with regards a boxers, his notability and persona. Many boxers are synonymous with there nicknames and are even recognisable be there nicknames alone. e.g. Butterbean (Eric Esch), "Marvelous" Marvin Hagler, "Prince" Naseem Hamed, "Sugar" Ray Leonard, "Cinderella Man" (James Braddock), Ray “Boom Boom” Mancini, Hector “Macho” Camacho, Kid "Kid" Lewis, Ronald "Winky" Wright, even this year Olympian Joe Murray went public looking for a nickname before he went pro. It's a crucial piece of information. The WP:BOXING !voted 9:1 with regards this issue.

Many fighters have more than one nickname, take the following examples for instance. Anthony Small has multiple comedic nicknames including "the Scream", "Sweet Pea" and "Sugar Ray Clay Jones Jr." - he isn't the only one and I think all should be added. To limit the number of nicknames to just two is horrible contrived. If a boxer has multiple common nicknames (be they favourable or unfavourable) then they should be included as long as it is sourced. Which of the Tyson nicknames would you remove or keep? "Iron Mike", "The Baddest Man on the Planet", "Mighty Mike" or "Kid Dynamite"? what about Pacquiao? "Pac-Man", "Manny", "the Pride of the Philippines" or "The Mexicutioner", or Ricky Hatton - The Hitman, the Manchester Mexican, the Pride of Hyde or Ricky Fatton?

At wikipedia we shouldnt take peoples personal feelings into consideration and we shouldnt cover up negative aspects of a biography. At the Boxing Project we don't hide the fact that Luis Resto destroyed a mans life or that Mike Tyson disfigured another fighter. We dont sweep things under the carpet to be polite - this isnt a dinner party! Not all boxers like their nicknames and infact many find them offensive or misrepresentative. We shouldnt ignore negative nicknames. Jimmy McLarnin didnt like being called "the Hebrew Scourge" or "the Jew Killer", Nikolai Valuev finds "the Beast from the East" utterly degrading and offensive, Thomas Hearns objected to "the Hitman", Victor Ortiz doesnt like being called "Vicious", John Mugabi hated "the Beast" and Kermit Cintron doesnt like being called "the Killer" because of his charity work, Paulie Malinaggi never liked being called "the Dead End Kid", as did Sam Langford being called the racist epitaph "the Boston Tar Baby" and Audley Harrison doesnt like "Fraudley" or "A-Farce". Interesting Ricky Hatton has embraced the derogatory "Ricky Fatton" nickname and even wore a fat suit during his ringwalk at the Juan Lazcano fight to mock it and "the Ghost" was also used as a term of abuse by another fighter towards Kelly Pavlik and then Kelly turned it positive and took it as his nickname.

That bring us onto major flop Audley Harrison. His team choose "A-Force" as his nickname (his team were also the root of trying to have the other nicknames removed here as well) but the majority of the fans rejected it and use other nicknames to describe him with the most common being "Fraudly" used in multiple sources such asSue Mott at The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Guardian, The Telegraph again, The Independent, SKY Sports, The Times Eastside Boxing.

I dont believe adding these nicknames breaches WP:BLP - BLP states that we should show Criticism and praise - this does, BLP states that we shouldnt take sides - if anything the articles on Harrison overemphasises the positives not the negatives. BLP states we shouldnt be give undue weight but representing a minority view as if it were the majority one - this doesnt - all the nicknames have multiple sources which back them up. On the undue issue I have this basic rule of thumb with regards the notability of a boxers nickname, it goes like this - if I saw it in the headline of an article would I know what boxer the article was going to be about. The ones added to the Harrison article pass that test in my opinion. Try these - "Fatton Flattened" - ?? "The Hitman is Mexicuted" - ?? "A-Farce fails again" - ??

Basically what I am saying is that boxers often have multiple nicknames and often have nicknames that they dont like but as long as they are commonly used and backed up by reliable sources then it should be shown in the infobox. I would also add that if there are multiple nicknames then if one is an official nickname then we should have (official) after that one. To do otherwise would be a breach of WP:NPOV remember Wikipedia is not censored.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have previously commented on this at the Audley Harrison page and see no reason to change my opinion as stated there. Boxers nicknames come from many different sources. Some are intended to flatter, others are derogatory and some well earned. Nikolai Valuev is well know to hate the nickname "The beast from the east" but it is a well recorded matter of fact that it has been used as his nickname by many sources. Likewise I am sure Audley doesn't like being called Fraudly, Audrey or A-Farce etc but they are well used and so should not be ignored. If they are well sourced they should be included in the info box and in the text where approriate. --LiamE (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• My 2p. No limit on nicknames. Well sourced, verifiable content should not be disregarded due to artificial limits that have no basis in reason.

Positive nicknames – commercial, professional, used in fight promotional material, ring announcers, respected broadcasters, published media, etc. – should be included.

Negative/pejorative nicknames – used only where these are impeccably sourced and subject to any other relevant BLP considerations. Boxing is fairly unique in this respect in that a boxer such as Harrison can become better known for inability than capability and the usual use of nicknames becomes transposed to draw attention to the athlete’s failings. That’s fine so long as normal evidential rules for content are applied.Leaky Caldron 11:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree as there are BLP issues to consider any perjorative nicknames must be VERY well sourced indeed but I can't see any reason to impose an arbitrary limit to the number of nicknames used in the infobox. --LiamE (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• As I see it there are two issues here - criteria for including nicknames in an article and criteria for including nicknames in an infobox. In the case of Audley Harrison, by far the most common nickname is his "official" one of "A-Force". The fact that he has received much criticism for his professional performances leading to a number of derogatory nicknames is, I believe, perfectly acceptable for inclusion in the article, with solid referencing, but including every nickname that's has ever been used in the infobox isn't sensible. Several boxers have had different primary nicknames during their career and these should all be in the infobox, whether the boxer likes those nicknames or not. Little-used nicknames/derogatory terms such as 'Audrey' for Audley Harrison and 'Rick Fatton' for Ricky Hatton have no place in the article let alone in the infobox, which should summarize the most important aspects of the article. I don't understand the obsession with piling all of these into an infobox.--Michig (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, I think the only nickname worth including for Mike Tyson is "Iron Mike", and for Hatton "Hitman".--Michig (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Boxers, as well as other notable people in other fields, are given nicknames and aliases wether they like it or not. Take the legendary 1930s boxer from Cuba who goes by the name Kid Chocolate. That moniker is probably a reference to his color. Nevertheless, he never comment on it. True, some athletes may not like their nicknames. But if it's what they're well-known for, then mentioning them may be neccessary. FoxLad (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The names they're known by, yes. Other nicknames, barring widespread adoption, wouldn't apply. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• What is or isn't put into the article content, is irrelevant to me. My concern is the Infobox, which IMHO should be limited to 2-nicknames (preferably a positive & negative name). GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Putting in "a positive & negative name" doesn't help balance the box. If anything, it may be applying undue weight to the negative nickname. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

HTF, I agree. Most boxers dont have a "negative nickname" so it doesnt become are issue - many boxers like Bernard Hopkins (Borenard) and Floyd Mayweather (May-runner) get dubbed with those type of nicknames by opposing fighters "fans" - these rarely get mentioned outside boxing forums and have no place in an article. But these are different these are nicknames that are in common use and back up in multiple reliable sources - not only that but they appear in the headline of articles for the boxers - which to be proves that they are commonly used and recognised as legitimate nicknames. I consider that it would be therefore a breach of undue weight and neutrality to omit it.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the best I can offer. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The Infobox should only list the boxer's most recognisable nicknames. But I do agree that nicknames are crucial to the identification of a boxer. For instance many people just know James Braddock as The Cinderella Kid.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The cinderella kid? I think you mean the cinderella man. In any case this name was only given to him after his comeback from obscurity and poverty. Previously he was known as Bulldog of Bergen, Pride of the Irish and

Pride of New Jersey. Oh look, another guy with multiple nicknames. --LiamE (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I just figured a 2-nickname limit (positive/negative) is a reasonable balance. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

.How many nicknames does a boxer normally have? Or any other sportsman for that matter?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

For boxers, at least one (I believe). GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

KB, normally one, sometimes many. GD, limiting the number of nicknames to two is hopelessly flawed - if a boxer has 3 positive common nicknames would you not include all? I should remind people that this is a BLP discussion and editors should focus on the BLP issues, there is already concensus to include the nicknames at WP:BOXING so if there isnt a significant BLP issue then that concensus should be acknowledged.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

2 nicknames is sufficiant IMHO & but, that's just my opinon. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• The sourcing is the thing, though - "significant" coverage needs to be seen. As far as I can see "Fraudley" is well-known and well sourced including sources from outside the boxing world; the others do not appear to be as supportable as that one. Black Kite 14:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

So, having just 'A-Force' & 'Fraudley' in the Infobox, would be acceptable? GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

IMO, yes. Others may obviously disagree! Black Kite 15:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Of the four - "Audrey", "Ordinary", "A-Farce" and "Fraudley" I would say that the latter two receive the the most amount of coverage.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• BLP articles need to be exceptionally well-sourced, and those sources must support the claim that a particular nickname is indeed widely used. If the boxing culture encourages nicknames to be used, it is likely that individual boxing writers might coin new nicknames in their work. Just because someone used a nickname (and therefore, a citation can be provided) doesn't mean it should appear in the article. (Should we add Boomer's nicknames to every athlete he mentions?) I think that might have been the case with "Audrey" and "Ordinary" in the original dispute. Yes, they can each be sourced, but perhaps not enough to assert common usage. I also think that an arbitrary limit of two nicknames—one "good" and one "bad"—is a misguided attempt at neutrality, and we also shouldn't be trying to mollify editors on both "sides". We're building a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia here. Looking at the sources provided by Vintagekits above, and googling for myself, my opinion is that "A-Force", "A-Farce", and "Fraudley" could all be sourced sufficiently to satisfy BLP concerns. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

2-limit for the Infobox 'only'. The content is limitless. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Why impose a limit on the infobox only? What difference does that make, if high-quality sources demonstrate widespread usage of three or more? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just my choice. Though whatever's chosen, I'll go along with it. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The sourcing is a key factor here. It doesn't matter if the nicknames are derogatory, if they are widespread and notable enough to make it into reliable/third party sources, there is nothing besides bland moralism (or maybe fanatism for some of the more established boxers) preventing their inclusion. Since Wikipedia is not censored, they are not a BLP violation. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out, all of these nicknames are already in the body of the article, where they can be commented upon or rebutted as desired or required. This discussion is about whether it is correct to add them all to the infobox, a citation of some sort, can be found for all these nicknames, some of them are quite well reported and some of them are less well reported. In my personal opinion, it is undue weight to add them to the infobox, which is a place of high visibility in the article, imo, the infobox is only for the main most well know nickname and adding all of these nicknames to the infobox is totally excessive and gives undue weight to the lesser known names. Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Caribbean H.Q. summed it up pretty well. I believe that only the nickname by which the boxer is most commonly known be placed in the infobox. All others may be posted within the article as long as those nicknames have really been used by the boxer himself or he is referred to as such by a verifiable relibale sources or sources and as such said sources must be cited. There are many websites out there whose writers may invent their own nicknames and as such should not be considered as reliable (example: Ringside Report). Tony the Marine (talk) 05:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So what's the general consensus, folks? GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment My personal opinion on this is one nickname per boxer is more then enough and example of why this should be is on the article Nikolai Valuev there is 4 nicknames, clearly when he is introduced into the ring only one is read out, so that one should be used not the other 3. To sum up boxing articles on Wikipedia in my view should have 1 and only 1 nickname in the info box that being the most common name the boxer is known as, however multiple nicknames can be mentioned in the article itself.

Ϛŧēvěŋ^talk 17:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

• I would say the general consensus here is reflective of the wikipeda norm as it is now, one nickname (the most common) in the infobox and any others if they are well used and citable in the body of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I shant dispute it then. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

KEITH DURN

Born:9th June 1946 in Cradley Heath.

Keith was a born sportsman. He played pro football for Birmingham City, Aston Villa then finished his career in the States. Keith also became Britsh & European Karate Champion he held the title for an incredible 6 years Keith was a warwickshire county squash player. Keith is also a Padi Pro Masterdiver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.175.89 (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't have an article on Keith Durn, and no Keith Durn has ever played for Aston Villa or been European "Karate champ". We have a Keith Dunn, but he's 103 years old if still alive. --NellieBly (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck was recently involved in a court case regarding the spoof website DidGlennBeckRapeAndMurderAYoungGirlIn1990.com. Consensus has been to be cautious on this and it had yet to receive mention. I feel some mention is needed. A great article was created at Beck v. Eiland-Hall. User: Geoffrey.landis decided to add a substantial amount of info to the main Glenn Beck article [36]. I feel that it is given too much weight in relation to other aspects of the article. I trimmed it substantially but included the wikilink to the main article and kept the website ([37]) in. Geoffrey.landis reverted. Is this a concern BLP concern?Cptnono (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If there is a BLP issue here, I don't see it. The facts of the case do not seem to be under any dispute, so I don't see any BLP violations of any sort in adding them to the article.

The only issue that I see raised is a claim that the section is too long (600 words added to a 4500 word article). I don't see how that is relevant to the BLP policy.Geoffrey.landis (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It is relevant. Other sections have been trimmed down to not present balance issues. This has included things that received significantly more coverage than this case. For some time, there was consensus to not include and the reasoning was that it was simply tabloid material with a website that Wikipeida should not be inadvertently promoting. I disagree with those reasons but do feel that receiving an independent subsection seen predominantly next to the lead in the TOC and more weight than the other better covered events causes a concern. Since we have the other article, we can find the balance between a content fork and too much coverage easily. Your lack of attempting to find consensus and disregarding discussion is a problem. I would also recommend taking a look at the archives but the conversation has come up so many times it might be hard to follow.Cptnono (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(Length): Length is not a BLP issue. If this is the issue, it does not belong here

("there was consensus to not include"): Sorry, but this is simply incorrect. At the time I added the material, the Talk:Glenn Beck discussion had four people commenting that the material should be included, and one person saying "I'm not sure if anything about this needs to be added to the article." (Indeed, there was also some discussion to the effect that the addition should be "minor", but that's not relevant to the BLP page. There absolutely was not a "consensus to not include.")

("your lack of attempting to find consensus") I'm not sure that "well, you started it" is an acceptable argument on Wikipedia, but let me point out that by deleting my text with no edit summary, I could just as easily accuse you of a "lack of attempt to find consensus." Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say there could have been a BLP issue if Beck simply had ignored the matter. Then, that website would have remained much more of a thing that somebody happened to make up one day, and would be of limited encyclopedic interest. But since Beck took active legal interest in the matter--and, in so doing, perfectly exemplified the Streisand effect--he has made the issue not only relevant to his biography, but familiar to the masses. Of course, there's a fine line between prominence and sensationalism, and the matter shouldn't be overstated. But since the prominence and/or sensationalism is largely a matter of Beck's own doing, it is biographically relevant and, I'd think, warrants at least a sentence or two--up to a paragraph, perhaps, but probably no more. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Good lord. Do we really need the huge Beck v. Eiland-Hall article? That was a blip on the radar, and is now adequately covered in the main Glenn Beck article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, that may be a bit much. Although I feel that Beck is largely responsible for turning this into part of his biography, the spirit of BLP involves discretion on account of basic human decency, and I don't think it indicates that we should plaster "rape and murder" all over the place when the matter can be covered, sensibly and succinctly, in the bio article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

A link with short precis would be more than adequate. Too many BLPs are repositories of every factoid and analysis thereof under the sun. At some point, "too much detail" is a real problem on WP. Collect (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: This seems to be more of a discussion that would be best done at the article's talk page. If issues cannot be resolved, at Talk:Glenn Beck, then dispute resolution in the form of WP:THIRD or WP:RFC would be appropriate, to deal with the matter of WP:WEIGHT. Cirt (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Antwahn Nance

Antwahn Nance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – I came across some odd edits that have stood for about two months. Since WP:BLP is far beyond my capacity to understand (WP:TLDR) (note: don't see chilling effect; instead see supercooling), I really can't fix the edits.

167.102.162.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – A joke edit to Herbert Spencer came from the IP address which I fixed. Looking at the Talk page of the IP, the edits emanating from there are from an official government agency, the edits represent state officials doing their job. Looking at the recent edit history of the IP address is where I came across the edits that struck me as a possible WP:BLP violation, but not ones that I'm in a position to correct if a violation; I know nothing of the LP nor why the edits were placed there. Per above, I'd rather not get involved in editing a BLP at this time.

—Aladdin Sane (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted this page per WP:BLP. There were no sources cited whatsoever, and numerous BLP violations. Crum375 (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The IP address has a .edu domain name, so it's an educational institution (probably a school); I've changed the template on the user talk page to clarify this. snigbrook (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the less ambiguous template. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nidal Malkin Hasan

Could interested individuals watchlist Nidal Malik Hasan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and review the article for likely BLP violations? Particularly the section Nidal Malik Hasan#Religious and ideological beliefs. Any and all help appreciated. Grsz¹¹ 15:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. It might as well be noted, too, that this article is up for deletion. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:George Galloway

Talk:George Galloway (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) - Is this edit permissible? As far as I can see, it breaks several guidelines, including biographies of living people, verifiability, not using a talk page as a forum and others. I have removed it twice, but it has been restored. I am reluctant to remove it again, unless other editors accept my view that there should be no place for such abuse on an article talk page.RolandR 17:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a bit of a forum style opinionated comment, I would support removal or archive the thread. Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Peter Stringfellow

I just reverted edits from a PR person who was rewriting the article in the subject's favour, removing some negative (although I think correct) info and rewriting details of his entrepreneurial career using what looked like puffery to me, although I have very little experience of BLPs. I looked at the version I reverted back to and it did seem a bit negative, I wondered if it was giving undue weight to the negative points. I added a {pov-check} tag, but I wasn't sure what effect that has - does that bring it to anyone's attention? Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

For an UK celebrity of his fame, that is a pretty terrible article. I've removed a lot of unreferenced stuff and trivia.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Cassandra 73 (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

American Indian Public Charter School

One of the new users working on the Richmond rape article has moved his attention to the American Indian Public Charter School article, it is not a BLP but the new edits seem to be attacking a living person, a guy called Chavis. I tried to ask him to take care and another editor also did, but it seems to be continuing, the inserts do seem to be cited, but from opinion places and it seems to me and the other editor that comments are being chosen to present the living person in as negative a way as possible, if someone could have a look, I especially didn't like the blackie comment and now the suck your titties senario. Comment in regard to this can be found from me and the user, Kafzeil can be found on User_talk:Richmondian who is the new user who is making these edits.Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

can anyone offer assistance with a persistent wikihound? Richmondian (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In either case, it looks like far too much detail, even if covered in detail by WP:RS. A three sentence paragraph with the refs should be enough for those who are interested to follow. Also, if Chavis has any denials they should be included. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Erin Burnett

An edit war is in progress over what is/is not a 'controversy' and the weight to be given to certain on-air statements she made. Article seemed to have achieved stability and consensus on these issues about two months ago, new editors have stirred things up. --CliffC (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have hidden a controversy that lacks any reliable secondary sources establishing it as a controversy (or in fact reliable secondary sources discussing it period) and left further explaination on the talk page why Nil Einne (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. As far as I can see, the current dispute is focused more on the so-called 'camel controversy'. I find it troubling that we have the POV language "Burnett launched an attack[38] on the Australian Prime Minister" cited to a video yet Burnett claims "her story was a 'deadpan joke.'" Was there an 'attack', and does the 'camel controversy' belong? Hoping for more admin eyes and comment on this article. --CliffC (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

eyes still needed ...

the Little Richard article has been undergoing extensive editing lately, and is still in serious need of some good BLP editors to help keep it encyclopedic in tone, well sourced, etc. thanks Sssoul (talk) 06:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Quintin Kynaston School

Quintin Kynaston School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'm concerned about this edit which seems to sail close to the wind in turning allegations into facts and introducing a bit of synthesis to support the "thieving" wording. I am not sure, also, if it is undue weight. I'd be very grateful for advice. DBaK (talk) 08:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks a lot better now, it's a bit of a storm in a teacup, a teacher tried to get his children into the best school he could..really! I'll keep my eye on follow up stories and as soon as it dies down, or any investigation is over it could be trimmed a bit more. Off2riorob (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I very much appreciate the input. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 13:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries, thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wolfgang Werlé

Wolfgang Werlé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Could someone add the customary BLP template to the edit field of this page? Also, please could you add it to your watchlist given the ongoing legal dispute. Thanks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

YOu can add the edit notice by adding [[Category:Living people]] to the article. If we take away the navel gazing legal bit, isn't this guy only known for the one thing? I see an Afd in the near future. Kevin (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The article could do with expanding, but satisfies WP:GNG for the time being. Had Herr Werlé hired a decent legal team (or listened to them), none of this would have happened, as the English language article about the Walter Sedlmayr case has clear First Amendment protection. Talk about booting the ball into the back of your own net.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't be creating an article on the back of a dispute with Wikipedia. We can't justify having having two sentences about the murder that cost him 15 years of his life purely to hang a paragraph about his spat with Wikipedia on it. Keep it on-topic. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Wolfgang Werlé. I have suggested a merger with Walter Sedlmayr. There is no intention to WP:COATRACK here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The parent already mentions his name, the sentence, the parole, and the subsequent dispute, so no merging necessary. Redirected as an otherwise duplicate. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not create Wolfgang Werlé and have already agreed in principle to a merger. No need for edit warring here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Adam Andrzejewski

Adam Andrzejewski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - this article was tagged for speedy deletion already but people, associated with the campaign no less, keep bringing it back and citing pro-Adam sources as unbiased sources. He is not a major figure yet, frankly, and the information on the 2010 Illinois Gubernatorial Campaign should be enough. He isnt famous enough to deserve a whole vanity page like this to himself. // 207.63.254.240 (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this as a BLP issue. If there is a notability issue, it should be resolved via the AfD route. There is no urgency, in any case. Crum375 (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thea Gill

User:Willthereeverbeamorning is claiming to be the subject of the article and has blanked sourced content more than once. The content seems (to me, admittedly BLP inexperienced) not very controversial. I have attempted to contact the user on their talk with no result. I really do not want to revert again before more experienced editors can assess the situation. Thanks Tiderolls 22:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted that user's changes again and left a talk page message directing them to WP:BIOSELF. If they refuse to communicate we can take it further. – ukexpat (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please take a look at the latest edit the user has made? The edit has removed several pieces of information which are well supported by references (or were - the references got nuked, too). I don't want to rollback again in case we're taking this seriously without a verification via OTRS. SMC (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at it, and it's not acceptable. Willthereeverbeamorning (talk · contribs)'s edits essentially made the article non-compliant with BLP. The user seems to imply that Gill is not and never was married, while sources prove that she was married to Richmond as late as August 2009. One more thing: The user takes their name from Will There Ever Be a Morning, a fake autobiography written about Frances Farmer. Pending an OTRS verification, I am restoring the article and issuing a warning to refrain from further edit-warring to the article. decltype (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. I'll keep it watched until (or should that be if) we find out more from OTRS. SMC (talk) 07:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Poor performance all around. When a questionably notable living person starts blanking their bio, consider helping them get it deleted, as opposed to furthering the torture. Hipocrite (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

She is not of questionable notability, and has not requested deletion. A user operating an account claiming to be the subject of the article has blanked certain sections of it. decltype (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:DOLT. Hipocrite (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Poor performance all around? I will take this opportunity to disagree with your assessment. There have been multiple attempts to establish communication with the user. As I read the opinions expressed here and on the user's talk, no one is claiming that any content be retained without reservation. This situation could most likely be resolved in short order with the user's cooperation. Regards Tiderolls 16:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Anwar al-Awlaki

Anwar al-Awlaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Awlaki is a very controversial person, but BLP still applies. An editor is trying to use extremist sources including WorldNetDaily to make various claims. Some claims are relatively minor (his birthplace) but others are defamatory.[39] Please watch for other defamatory statements in the article, which is undergoing a period of heavy editing. // ~YellowFives 12:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

One statement was based on a book published by WorldNetDaily, so I've removed that. I also removed an alleged quote from a no-longer extant blog from a NEFA Foundation pdf, [40] as I don't see how that can be a reliable source for this either. Whatever we think of the subject we still need to apply the same BLP policy. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've weighed in on this at WP:RSN. While politicized sources such as WND may be cited with attribution in some articles, the ultimate source for one of the cites in question was a keynote address by a DHS undersecretary at a government-sponsored symposium, and a transcript of the speech is at DHS.gov, and I've suggested that be used instead. As an aside, I'm not familiar with NEFA, but I'm not sure why you'd consider it unreliable. Perhaps NEFA should be discussed on RSN as well. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Roy Thomas Baker birthday

Roy Thomas Baker was not born in 1956. I knew RTB in the 70's, 80's. I was born in 1955 and he is at least 9 or ten years older than me. I'd say 1946 is more like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss Silliness (talk • contribs) 17:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Since according to one of the sources he had "vast experience" in 1975, I think you must be right -- I went ahead and removed that information. Looie496 (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

My edit was reverted by Ukgovorg (talk · contribs), a new account that has not made any other edits. I am going to revert back and put a query on the editor's talk page, but I won't get into an edit war over this. Looie496 (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

David Michael Jacobs

Regarding the David Michael Jacobs page, Jacobs is notable as a prominent Ufologist. I have removed a reference to his opinion on how research should be conducted regarding Marion apparitions, which is not part of the field of Ufology. I put a notice on the discussion page about this. User:Sift&Winnow has reinstated it a number of times, putting a note in the edit log that it was for "balance". I then put a note on the User:Sift&Winnow talk page saying that a biography article should be restricted to their views on the area they are notable in. User:Sift&Winnow replied that it should be a well-rounded article on the person, encompassing his life, his work, his views, etc. My understanding is that a biography page is not a place to include the person's views on any number of unrelated areas. What is the right thing to do here? Ocean33 (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I gave my opinion on the talk page. The section in question seems to be more pointless than BLPish. I don't think that mentioning his opinion on this could create any problems for him, but I also don't think anyone would care. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have gone ahead and removed the sectionOcean33 (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP NPOV (when editors differently understand NPOV)

(Excuse me if asking a general question is inappropriate here, I'm not completely familiar with what goes where in terms of discussion.)

Situation: two people editing a BLP have "different" understandings of the implications of NPOV

Question: Would it be reasonable to have them come to this noticeboard (or NPOVN?) to clarify their understandings (get on the same page)?

NOTE: The reason I ask this here is because it has seemed to me that NPOV in a BLP is in some way more stringent(?), subtly different(?). Proofreader77 (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I would think that NPOV issues in a BLP could brought to people's attention here. No problem. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Noriko Sakai

The article Noriko Sakai is a blatant BLP issue. It says nothing about any part of her life except the most recent, which includes a drug scandal. This scandal material has been lovingly worked on in excruciating detail and inserted by User:Groink, who despite being on Wikipedia for more than 4 years, sees nothing wrong with a BLP consisting only of a scandal, which incidentally, is not the reason she's famous. The reason the scandal even has any legs in the news media is given her pop icon status in Japan. The incongruous nature of this BLP has been pointed by several on the talk page, but those people don't seem to understand that there are Wikipedia procedures in place to take care of such issues. Which is why I am posting this here. Regards, --208.120.179.102 (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as the material is neutral, reliably sourced, and unoriginal, it's not a BLP violation. All that's left is a question of significance. If she is famous for far more than a drug scandal, the best way to handle that is to add that other information. But in the meantime, no harm is really being done because the material is, once again, neutral, realiable, and unoriginal (as for adding that other information, you could start by translating from the Chinese and Japanese articles, which contain some non-drug related content that isn't in the English article). Otherwise, the proper course of action is dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No. It's a major problem in this article. WP is not a supermarket gossip paper. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It's just hard to see the content as supermarket gossip if it's as well sourced as it appears to be (i'm not familiar with Japanese newspapers). If you feel the content is just gossip, you're free to take care of it with the normal processes, as you already know. But the principle of BLP is "do no harm." Reporting reliably sourced content does no harm when it is done neutrally and without inserting original research. The only argument available that's available to say it does actually do harm, and thus is a BLP violation is to claim insignificance of the content (in the NPOV sense of the term), but that's a fairly contentious thing to do, and my not afford the same protections as you get removing more obvious BLP violations (namely the exemption from 3RR). I'm not saying the content should stay there, merely that it need not be removed with extreme prejudice. I agree that it should be cut down, at the very least. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Sol Wachtler

I noticed a (former?) editor complaining about this page Sol Wachtler at User talk:Jimbo Wales#What the hell happened to BLP? [41]. The complaints are rather non specific and I didn't notice any real problems but welcome others to take a look Nil Einne (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Lester Coleman

I noticed that in a recent change to the Lester Coleman page, an IP address has replaced cited content with a legal threat, warning that anyone who replaces the content will be reported for violating a court order. There is some discussion of this on the talk page, but it is over two months stale and, personally, I don't know anything about it, but I thought that it would be best to bring it up here and see if anyone else does. Cheers, CP 20:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason for the removal as the content was sourced. SPA's have been continually attacking the article, making unsourced claims for months. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

this is the disputed content....

1999 arrest on charges of fraud

On April 10, 2000, he was sentenced to ten years on thirty-six counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument. The trial court then suspended imposition of the sentence and granted Coleman probation for five years. However, on June 11, 2002, his probation officer filed an affidavit stating that Coleman had violated the terms of his probation and was residing in Saudi Arabia. Coleman was then apprehended later in Florida and was returned to Kentucky where he was then formally sentenced to ten years in prison on May 29, 2003. Later, upon appeal to vacate his sentence, the Fayette Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky denied his motion and affirmed his conviction on May 28, 2004. this is the supporting cite

Are there any other citations for any of the material or is it just this single source? Off2riorob (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[42], [43], [44] --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not an expert but those citations don't seem to actually support these comments and are not strong enough to show notability or wide coverage of a notable event. Off2riorob (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

They show Coleman was arrested, convicted, sentenced, and violated his parole. The article is not about an event, but rather about Coleman. I would think a jail sentence would be notable in a bio. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

A splendid use of primary sources (court documents) to be used contrary to WP:OR and WP:SYN as well as WP:V, WP:RS and lovely WP:BLP which states "Exercise great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details—such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses—or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them." Collect (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Confused. Are you saying the court doc should be used or not? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a no. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Just out of interest, what is criminal possession of a forged instrument.Off2riorob (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

IANAL, but I believe it means a person is knowingly holding a fake cheque, money order, etc. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Which jail is he in? Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No idea if he's still in jail. Does it matter? --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No, what jail was he in? Off2riorob (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

To make it quite clear -- WP:BLP says not to use "trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them." Records where personal information is included are barred outright. Collect (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)