Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:52, 29 May 2011

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.

Kelly Wearstler

Are breast and ass measurements relevant for female interior designers?

Kelly Wearstler is a prominent American interior designer. Her prominence can probably be indicated by links such as this, this orthis.

Wearstler's work as an interior designer is the only reason she is known, except, I guess, to a small group of collectors of decade-old issues of Playboy, who remember that she was a Playboy playmate back in 1994.

As these Playboy aficionados are more numerous on Wikipedia than people interested in interior design, they have managed for years to keep the article in a state where her brief appearance in Playboy completely dominates the article. This has been done through a playmate "infobox", with breast, waist and hip measurements, and a navigation box listing all playmates of a certain year, effectively emphasizing that particular context above any other. Kelly Wearstler and/or people working for her have actually tried to change the article to actually reflect her real fame, but they haven't done this with much skill and have promptly been reverted by more experienced Wikipedia users.

Wearstler's success as an interior designer is the only reason she deserves a Wikipedia page, not her appearing nude in a single issue of Playboy 17 years ago.

I recently removed the playmate infobox and navigation box from the article. that removal remained unchallenged until today when they were put back, first by an IP, later by User:Dismas.

This article needs some more attention. Her appearance in Playboy should certainly be mentioned in passing, as it is in her NYTimes profile, but I see no reason why it should dominate the page. --Hegvald (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a case of undue weight.--Scott Mac 19:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While you are correct that it probably shouldn't dominate the article, you are being dismissive and condescending with remarks like "a small group of collectors of decade-old issues of Playboy". The fact is, appearing as a Playmate of the month was essentially a free pass to notability until recently. It is a significant event in her life. I agree that the Playmate infobox probably isn't appropriate for this article, but I don't think looking down your nose at people adding it helps either. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are going about this in the wrong direction. There's no reason to remove any of the material pertaining to her Playmate status. The problem is that the article says little to nothing about her status as an interior designer, and, judging from the fact that I get over 500000 Google hits on "Kelly Wearstler", there should be plenty of material to add. Whether she likes it or not, though, she will always be the interior designer that used to be a Playmate.—Kww(talk) 21:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't have any great regard for "interior designers" (even less than I have for Playmates); they strike me as an over-self-publicized, overpaid, socially useless breed of entrepreneurs. Their overall usefulness to society is something less than the folks who design hats for British royal weddings, and the entertainment value of their work is several quantum leaps lower. If I were running for office, and I could cover up a past as a Playmate or a past as an interior designer, I'd cover up being an interior designer. Being a Playmate says "I have no qualms about exploiting my appearance to make money off sexually frustrated adolescent males of all ages." Being an interior designer says "I have no socially valuable skills whatsoever." "Interior designer" is the profession undereducated rich women on soap operas who've been out of the work force for years (in the unlikely event they were ever in it) go into when they're peeved at, or dumped by, their spouses. Because it's the only job that's even remotely credible for them to hold. If most of Kristen Wiig's annoying characters were real people, they'd be interior designers. That weasel who sold your down-on-his-luck brother-in-law a second mortgage that quickly went underwater by getting him a phony appraisal and puffed-up income statement. He's married to an interior designer. Is your state legislator a real tool, a political hack in the pockets of special interests (and it doesn't matter whether they're business or labor interests, liberal or conservative PACs)? He or she will have been endorsed by the state's trade association of interior designers. And received a pile of campaign contributions from them.
Just push the damn infobox to the bottom of the article; that's where too many of them belong anyway. Most infoboxes are useless clutter anyway. They're the unholy spawn of USA Today's breed of superficial journalism. I've spent a couple weeks suffering my way through the complete set of Playmate articles and removing the trivial and the obsessive detail. A batch of the models have gone on to do real jobs and play constructive roles in society, and nobody's advocating subordinating their Playmate past. No reason for special treatment for the interior designers. Even the lawyer-Playmates aren't shameless enough to ask for it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to be quick about this.

Instead of removing things from the article, why doesn't Hegvald add some evidence of this notability as an interior designer? Or add {{tl|Infobox interior designer}} above the other infobox?
Several peer reviewed scientific studies have been done using Playboy's data as their data set. So this data would be helpful in an encyclopedia entry for one of the Playmates.
I'd appreciate it if editors could keep their personal morals and opinions of Playboy readers out of their editing and discussions. The maintainer of the WeKinglyPigs.com web site, which is a reliable source for the article, is female and not a "sexually frustrated adolescent male" of any age. Dismas|^(talk) 21:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say "depends on what the measurements are", arf! arf! arf! Seriously though, Hullaballoo, is Wikipedia really the place to vent your spleen about how you consider interior designers to be the spawn of Satan and on a level with Bible-peddling life-insurance salespeople or anybody working in the advertising industry? Just asking. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, not really. But I was responding to the almost-explicit argument that "interior designers" are so much more reputable than Playmates because their work is so very very worthwhile. That and the fact that I remember the pompous, self-important self-promotion that Wearstler or one of her PR people tried to substitute for the article [1]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the argument you refer to is high quality HS but seriously there are so many targets for your wroth, i.e. interior designers and other such modern necessities as lifestyle coaches, that you will exhaust yourself by railing against them all. My cat is of more companionship, intelligence and pertinence to me than 95% of the human race, I do take a fairly Bhuddist POV in general and, I think, it helps to remain detached on WP where people will quite happily argue for hours, days, weeks, months, years about hooey. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that both Dismas and Kww claim that I removed things. The only things I removed were the boxes.

Infoboxes, by their nature as graphic embellishment, draw attention and tell the reader (in this particular case): "this is the deal with Kelly Wearstler", "this is the most important information". In this case that included the (apparently) false name she used as a Playboy model, the bust/waist/hip measurements, her weight and the preceding and succeeding playmates, all things to do with a single minor episode of her life 17 years ago. Whatever anyone decides to do with the rest of the article, as long as that infobox remains on top, it will still continue to draw attention to itself and dominate the article. I don't think anyone who looks at her biography and thinks about this article objectively can seriously argue that this anatomical information and her status as a Playboy playmate back in 1994 are the most important pieces of information about her.

The main issue here is conforming with the BLP policy. No matter how short the article is, it still needs to do so. In this case, that means not giving undue weight to minor aspects of her life. I don't find Wearstler having been a Playboy model any more shameful than her being an interior designer, and it shouldn't be suppressed. But in the context of her entire biography, it isn't all that important and shouldn't be given undue weight. It should be mentioned in passing, nothing more and nothing less. --Hegvald (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Her status as a Playmate is notable. Look above in the discussion, and you will find precisely no one that agrees with you that it needs to be minimized. The problem is that the article is a three sentence stub. Add four or five paragraphs of well-sourced information about her career as an interior designer, and the infobox can be moved to a later paragraph about her career as a Playmate. Right now, the infobox is as late in the article as possible.—Kww(talk) 12:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that I would be interested in writing about Kelly Wearstler, I would still have to ask myself why I would I want to invest time and effort in doing this when there is a greater-than-average possibility that the article will still end up looking as if it had been co-authored with Beavis and Butthead. --Hegvald (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the infobox. It is quite unacceptable. That she was in playboy is notable, and is rightly recorded in the article. However, glorifying it with a big box and breast measurements is clearly a breach of WP:UNDUE and the spirit of "do no harm" encapsulated in the BLP policy. She's an interior designer. She doesn't highlight here past appearance and neither should we. Especially not on the nonsense that of infobox conformity. Anyway, how is her breast size in 1994 relevant to anything? Can you verify that's here size now - 17 years later? Is this an important part of understanding her? There's no justification for this. We don't define someone who has a notable career by their appearance in some magazine 17 years ago - and their breast size then. Horrible, sexist and unfair to the subject.--Scott Mac 12:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, I would agree with you: I routinely remove mentions and links of things like "Maxim's 100 Hottest Women": those lists are not particularly notable, and not particularly relevant to the careers of the women involved. Being a Playmate is a quite different thing: a conscious choice of the woman involved, done with her cooperation, in an effort to seek money and fame. Most articles about her as an interior designer still discuss the Playmate stint. As I say above: if you don't want the weight to be undue, weight the scale on the other side: find some material in this notable career as an interior designer that will fill the article. I looked for a bit, and couldn't find anything I thought was worth adding. That says a lot to me about its actual notability. The fact that her cup size in 1994 can be reliably sourced also says a lot of 'that fact's notability.—Kww(talk) 12:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting it isn't notable, or reference to it should be removed. But it will not do to breach WP:WEIGHT and then say "well someone else should re-ballance it". The problem is risking an unbalanced article for the sake of a silly box. Her breast size 17 years ago would not be considered notable enough to include in prose, so it is hardly justified in highlighting it in a box.--Scott Mac 13:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In all likelihood Kww is right - she'll be known more for her Playmate status than her interior design work. Look at Yvette Vickers - a Google News search on her death shows about the most common headlines for the stories usually referred to her Playmate status, with the next most common element being her B-movie status then specifically her role in Attack of the 50 Foot Woman. In that light I say have the inforbox in Kelly's article reflect that. If for some reason the crowd doesn't feel comfortable with that, then do what's done for the articles for Jenny McCarthy and Pamela Anderson and have {{tl|Infobox people}} at the top with a focused Playmate infobox down below. Tabercil (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE should be the guide here. Her New York Times profile is nine paragraphs, with only one paragraph about her Playboy appearance. That sounds about right to me for our biographical article. If editors want to increase our coverage of her Playboy appearance, they can expand the entire article and then make their case to include the various Playboy widgets and boxes. If a compromise is necessary, I would suggest that the prominent top infobox be left out but the bottom collapsible Playmate box could stay. Is there a way to make those boxes default to collapsed? Gamaliel (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think I know how to do that and I will try now, I do it sometimes when they are so big as to be obtrusive in the article or when there is only a tangentially connection or as in this case where less obtrusive makes them less undue. Off2riorob (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done but not yet added as its unclear if there is consensus support for it - to anyone wanting to make a template default to collapse on a single article in future you add this to the template and "state=collapsed" to the template on the article. {{Playmates of 1994|state=collapsed}} - Off2riorob (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation boxes such as this one and "specialized" infoboxes, such as the one for Playboy "playmates", both serve the same function: to push a non-neutral POV and give undue weight to a particular aspect of a subject. There is nothing in the articles about those other "playmates" from that year that is important for a reading of Kelly Wearstler's biography. Even within the Playboy playmate context, there is nothing specifically about the other "playmates" from 1994 that make them more significant for Kelly Wearstler than tose from 1993 or 1995. And the people who want to find "playmates" from that or any other year can find them through lists and categories in any case. --Hegvald (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about this issue, the more bothered I am that WP:UNDUE somehow requires that material be suppressed or scaled back because more "consequential" claims are treated skimpily. There hasn't been any claim here that Wearstler/Gallagher has been treated differently than any other Playmate has been. The disputed information has been given the same weight that it has in articles on other Playmates. The argument here is that because her second claim to notability is treated rather skimpily, the treatment of her first (chronologically) claim must be scaled back. This doesn't make any sense to me. If her career as an interior designer (not the world's most respected "profession," see here [2]) can be expanded, it should be. If the article can't be significantly expanded in this regard due to lack of significant coverage, then under the Wikipedia definition of notability it's just not so notable, and its low relative weight in comparison to her Playmate coverage is appropriate, whatever value judgments Wikipedia editors may otherwise hold about the merits of her various careers.
Lately I've been adding book review excerpts to book and author articles, something which Wikipedia has rather embarrassingly neglected in favor of overdetailed plot summaries. I've been doing this using review archives, sometimes online, sometimes by trudging down into Wolfowitz's Big Basement Full Of Old Books And Magazines and rummaging through packing crates. Every so often, I come across a scathing review that is certainly noteworthy enough to include in the article, but does not represent critical consensus. (See Stranger in a Strange Land for an example, the NYT review.) You could reasonably make an "undue weight" criticism in such cases. But the way to deal with it is not to remove noteworthy content, but for editors to continue to add further relevant content.Wikipedia is a work-in-progress. There's a big difference between, say, detailed exposition of a celebrity's DUI or publicly-revealed-drug-use, out of proportion to the way such matters are treated generally, and an article that is imbalanced because certain matters are treated at the length that has been treated as appropriate, in the general case, by consensus, while others are treated more sketchily than they could be. This discussion has lost sight of that important difference. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo, you have already shown your bias against interior design and its practitioners in your previous rant. It is no more interesting or relevant now than it was then. If other former "playmates" with later successful careers in other fields are treated in a similar way, with the Wikipedia bio giving the size of their breasts more prominence than their professional accomplishments, it is something that should be looked into, not held up as a standard. --Hegvald (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Bias" against interior designers? Oh, the horribleness. Are they forced to sit at the back of the limo or something? You want to give more weight to her professional accomplishments, whatever they may be, nobody's stopping you -- in fact, everybody's been encouraging you. But she doesn't get special treatment and the right to edit out well-known parts of her past that she might want to downplay. And let's be frank, her physical characteristics are certainly relevant to her main reason for prominence, her Playmate career. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People might take your opinions more seriously if you based them on real life and not on inane pop culture like soap operas. You do realize that soap operas show interior designers as rich pampered socialites because all women in soap operas are rich pampered socialites? In the real world - the one that this encyclopedia is about - interior design is a building trade and hard physical work, and you don't get into it if you're a pampered, spoiled socialite. You get into it because you can make more money at it than at general construction - many interior designers these days started out as journeyman carpenters. Do you think they just stood there in six-inch heels and half a pound of makeup, tee-heeing at a display of paint chips? LOL they're tearing down the wall with a crowbar! --NellieBly (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know "bias" was putting it politely. "Irrational vitriol" is probably a more adequate description of your attitude towards interior designers. "[Systemic] bias" is a good description of the situation in Wikipedia in general, where a strong contingent of nerdish Playboy and porn fans keep track of who posed nude in which magazine decades ago (do most normal Playboy readers even remember who was the playmate of last month?), but no strong group of interior design fans exist to even it out.

Your claim that "her main reason for prominence" is her "Playmate career" is silly. She never had a "playmate career". She spent a few hours posing for a Playboy photographer. That's it. She has spent two decades building an actual career as an interior designer (including the time she spent in design college before her interlude in Playboyland). And that is her main claim to fame, as her coverage in the NYT and other current publications clearly show.

As for writing about her, I am not really interested in doing that. Does that mean that I have no right to argue against including a blatantly sexist infobox as the most prominent part of her article? That is the real issue here, and it may well apply to other biographies. --Hegvald (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's change the focus for a moment

Indulge me for a moment by putting this debate in the context of the other gender.

Consider the case of Steve Largent. He was a well-known American football player in the late 1980s. He went on to serve in the US congress. His page contains a US congress infobox, of course... but immediately below it, a *larger* infobox summarizes his career in the NFL. Mr. Largent's height and weight are included most prominently. Mr. Largent is most likely better known nationally for playing football than for serving in congress.

Are we giving undue weight to Mr. Largent's less-useful-to-society career as a football player over his laudable political career? Are we objectifying him by including his body statistics from his playing days? (He's probably not 187 pounds of lean muscle nowadays.) And, what about the vast number of football players who have moved on to less-glamorous careers, but who would prefer to minimize their sports background in favor of coverage of their car salesmanship? Should we collapse their NFL infoboxes and reduce coverage of their football career if we can't find articles about their motivational speaking tours?

I hear and acknowledge reasonable points on both sides of this Kelly Wearstler discussion. I'm worried, though, that people's feelings on this specific article might not be separated from their opinions with regard to gender politics.Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one thing I do agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz about is that "most infoboxes are useless clutter". Most tend to give undue weight to figures, facts or factoids of ultimately dubious relevance or accuracy, because these are the kind of things that fit into a box. But as far as the BLP issue is concerned, I don't find a case such as the one you mention quite as egregious, and the general discussion about infoboxes probably belongs elsewhere. --Hegvald (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Lewis

Section 4 titled Arrest for Murder uses speculative information and a testimony as factual information. References 25 specifically. The section suggest Ray Lewis is guilty and presents him in a negative light. The section should read like this:

Lewis gained infamy through his involvement in a much-publicized tragedy in Atlanta after Super Bowl XXXIV. Lewis, along with Reginald Oakley and Joseph Sweeting, were charged with two counts of murder and four other felony counts in the deaths of Richard Lollar and Jacinth Baker, after a street brawl left two young men dead outside a nightclub. [12][25]

On June 5, a plea bargain was struck, and murder and aggravated assault charges against Lewis were dropped in exchange for his testimony against his companions. He pled guilty to one count of obstruction of justice and was sentenced to a year of probation. NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue fined Lewis $250,000 for conduct detrimental to the league, a penalty aimed at the obstruction of justice. [12]

Lewis' testimony didn't help the prosecution in the four-week trial, which ended in acquittals for Oakley and Sweeting. [12]

The following year, Lewis was named Super Bowl XXXV MVP. However, the signature phrase "I'm going to Disney World!" was given instead by quarterback Trent Dilfer.

In 2004, Lewis reached a settlement compensating then four-year-old India Lollar, born months after the death of her father Richard, preempting a scheduled civil proceeding. Lewis also previously reached an undisclosed settlement with Baker's family. [28] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnsy1627 (talk • contribs)

Brian Keene

I tried to find where Brian Keene is noted by the NY Times, History Channel and Howard Stern, as article claims but couldn't find it. However I did find the exact same profile information on his Facebook profile, though. Not sure if he even meets notability, but perhaps I am missing something here. Most of his books are out of print although he did win awards at one time. The page suggests WP:PEACOCK to me. I'm open to any feedback.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with you - he does have five articles about his books on this wikipedia. I would say, as with other authors - he has a few notable books but as for writing a cited life story - his private life is pretty private, with little reliable coverage. Content in the article is uncontroversial - advice - trim some of the uncited fluff and add it to your watchlist Off2riorob (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have taken your advice and trimmed some, but not all of the fluff there. Note, many of these issues stem from Bloodletting Press, an independent publisher with an article on WP that violates WP:SPAM and WP:PROMO.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qur'an and science

Regarding a removal of content on Qur'an and Science, relating to Dr. Keith Moore's testimony of the accuracy of the Qur'an in Human Embryo development, considering it against WP:BLP and referring to an old discussion on his article too. The previous dispute was majorly based on the following:

Moore's academic textbook with Islamic Editions is not in his CV/Resume'

His 3rd academic textbook, with Islamic additions, was basically adding Qur'anic versus wherever it applies. I assume that his main problem was that the Arabic editor who helped him with the Arabic text, Al Zindani, was later considered a terrorist and started to work with Al-Qaida. I'm the first person that would remove something like that from my CV. So, if it was manipulating his name, it would of been easier to just announce that it's false. Especially as it's talked about him in all around the internet.

His Islamic version text-book is bias and is only used in certain countries

Where are the countries that can speak Arabic to read Qur'anic versus in Arabic? The middle-east! I've also seen many comments from Arabic Anatomy students on bookstores saying that his book is required by their University.

I've seen in other articles the usage of YouTube videos to take direct quotes of living personnel, so is this link considered acceptable, too? I won't reference details about the second terrorist editor, but just wanted to write a direct quote from Moore, if possible.

Thanks for our help, as this subject have been in debates fro years... getting added and removed over and over again. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 08:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about the youtube external. IMO that would not be a reliable external and the uploader does not appear to be officially connected to the video and copyright status of the medias clip is unverifiable. We also would be unsure if the clip was complete or had been edited from the original in some way. Off2riorob (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't make assumptions about why he does what. What the talk page discussion says is " The 3rd edition of his book The Developing Human contains changes by a Muslim, who removed all scientific pages which go against creation by a god and inserted religious texts from the Koran as well as excerpts from the Sayings of Muhammad, the Hadith." and points out that subsequent editions of the book do not contain those changes.

We have no proof that he wrote those passages and given the circumstances should not assume that he did. So it is clearly a BLP violation to include them. Dougweller (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you're describing is all considered assumptions, also. I think that an admin shouldn't be repeating a comment made by a new user, especially that he didn't bring any sources and only has 6 edits, total. The comment you're referring to was basically ignored because it was made 4 months ago on a 3-year-old discussion!

I think it's the publisher's duty to verify if Moore was involved in the textbook, not you nor me. The comment is full of biasness, as I've read the book myself and it's used as an academic textbook in Islamic states. It's not Wikipedia's problem if the Arab media is weak. Whatever is there is there. The 3rd edition with Islamic additions is the exact 3rd edition in the west, except for adding the versus. One edition was for the west and another was for the Middle-East, which are both used till now. There were no additional Islamic versions because the Arabic co-editor was kicked out of the Arab nation after his involvement with terror organizations. Do you have any sources for disputing Moore's textbook? ~ AdvertAdam^talk 06:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen other videos for living persons used the same way. If Moore's textbook mentions his involvement in Islamic connections, can I use the main source of the full video (considering that I completed the copyright rules) as a direct quote. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 06:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you owned the copyright or could find the video in a location that asserted ownership of the copyright then you are over the first hurdle, there may be other issues such as WP:PRIMARY - if he is only commenting about himself and his views related to himself them there is a chance that you could use a small quote but I would have to look at it and get a couple of other opinions to be sure. Off2riorob (talk) 10:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I'm gonna postponed the videos. I have all the contact and stuff, but I have a lack of timing because of two bias editors that are wasting all my time in endless discussion. Thanks for the tips and I will work on it, sometime soon. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 07:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened: Is the dispute--that mentioning Moore's acknowledgment of the accuracy of the Qur'an in Embryology--accurate, stating that it might violate BLP policy? I was just writing what the following citations said! I don't think that the sources are unreliable, just because the publishers have no market here in the west. I've used these sources in my university before, also.

His own anatomy textbook: Moore, Keith. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology With Islamic Additions. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Dar al-Qiblah for Islamic Literature, in conjunction with W. B. Saunders Company, 1983. (ISBN 0721664925)
His statement in an article: The Journal of the Islamic Medical Association. Vol. 18. 1986. p. 15-16.
Another author who mentions Moore's acknowledgement: Edis, Taner. An illusion of harmony: science and religion in Islam. Prometheus Books, 2007. Original from the University of Michigan. p. 96 (ISBN 1591024498)
He also mentions that he gave lectures in Saudi Arabia here, also. Just an answer for the disputers that said that he never went there.

Btw, do I need to use all sources to stop further disputes, or do I just link my edit summary to this noticeboard. I've already got editors' approval when I added it months ago, but it was deleted this week again. Thank you all ~ AdvertAdam^talk 07:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issue with self published Anti-Scientology material accusing Living person of criminal acts in Article

Scientology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is one my watchlist File:Speaking Out About Organized Scientology.pdf was inserted this morning by an editor in good faith. This media file is WP:SPS that makes a number of serious allegations of criminal acts against living person David Miscavige and several other officials in the Church of Scientology. This strike me as essentially backdoor way to insert way to insert libelous material without the scrutiny that would be rendered if the accusations would be inserted directly into the article itself. I frankly can't find any rule against it in our BLP policy though I am sure it break the spirt of the policy. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 12:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the author, Brennan, isn't mentioned in the article, it looks questionable. I'd remove it as lacking any context, and ask anyone wishing to reinsert to explain why they think it is valid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of this case being explicitly addressed in any policy, but even though it is presented to the user as an image, for all intents and purposes it is an external link. Per WP:BLP and WP:EL it would be unacceptable as an external link. I am not sure how this file could ever be used on Wikipedia, which makes me wonder why it continues to be hosted on Commons. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thought as well, I have checked commons and they have no policy against it. Similiar items have been up for deletion but are kept with the rationale that its educational. Commons has no concern over BLP issues it as long at is Free and can be educational. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Corsi

I have objected, as have other editors, under the provisions of WP:BLP, to the pejorative and objective labeling of Jerome Corsi as a "Conspiracy Theorist". Perhaps there's a case to be made for this inclusion, perhaps not...but it certainly should at least require the establishment of a strong consensus for this edit in talk. Editors are now engaged in reverting edits removing this pejorative characterization despite WP:BLP objections raised. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of relliable academic sources

When someone publishes in an academic journal that an individual is prominently known as a conspiracy theorist, we can use that as a lreliabe source for this fact. See the last diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jerome_Corsi&action=historysubmit&diff=430675099&oldid=430673364 for the source which is to an expert in conspiracy theorists.

Please do not remove this fact unless you have a reliable source which disputes it. I have found none in researching this individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.169.46 (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please. WP:RS "facts not in evidence". While the cited source may be academic, Mr. Berlet is no "academic". From Wikipedia (emphasis mine)...

John Foster "Chip" Berlet (born November 22, 1949) is an American investigative journalist, and photojournalist activist specializing in the study of right-wing movements in the United States, particularly the religious right, white supremacists, homophobic groups, and paramilitary organizations. He also studies the spread of conspiracy theories in the media and on the Internet, and political cults on both the right and left of the political spectrum.

He is the senior analyst at Political Research Associates (PRA), a non-profit group that tracks right-wing networks,...

I'll leave it to other editors as to whether a cite from an apparently hyper-biased "investigative journalist" satisifes WP:BLP, WP:RS criteria for objectively maligning Mr. Corsi as a "conspiracy theorist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by JakeInJoisey (talk • contribs) 15:06, 24 May 2011

Given the content of the article, I don't think we need a citation in the lead to call him a conspiracy theorist. The article makes clear that he writes about conspiracy theories (using some form of the word conspiracy 19 times), news media (eg Newsweek in 2007 and others this month) things such as "The main purveyor of this broad conspiracy theory is Jerome Corsi, "[3], see also [4] and I could go on. Saying " Corsi has discussed topics that are considered conspiracy theories in most circles," seems pretty weasely to me. Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the content of the article, I don't think we need a citation in the lead to call him a conspiracy theorist.

Perhaps so, perhaps not...but that's an issue to be resolved by consensus in talk, not here. I am soliciting administrative intervention as to the propriety of inserting content currently disputed under a WP:BLP objection. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It meets rs, so what other objections have you got? TFD (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your observation is irrelevant to the purpose of this notice. Please consider commenting in the article talk for consideration by all interested editors. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source is Chip Berlet's article in Race in the age of Obama, published by Emerald Group Publishing Limited.[5] When evaluating the reliablity of sources, we must look at the type of publication. Articles published in academic books are high quality reliable sources, and this article passes. Berlet in fact has written many articles and books for the academic press. Although Berlet also writes journalism and activist writing, this article is scholarly writing.TFD (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear opinions, as always, no matter who holds them, are only valid as claims of "opinion." The current standards for WP:BLP tend to make exceedingly good and strong sourcing a minimum for any such claim, I seem to recall a statement You would need a good source that called his view a conspiracy theory. It is a very strong term, and means more than a theory that a conspiracy existed which would imply a strong standard for calling any view a "conspiracy theory" and, by extension, anyone would need fully as strong a source for calling anyone a "conspiracy theorist" under the current BLP rules. I would suggest that a single source would not meet that requirement, and likely three independent sources would be a good idea. Collect (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider posting your observations in the article talk. I'm experiencing some difficulty here with editors arguing the validity of the content as opposed to the propriety of its inclusion prior to consensus being attained after a WP:BLP objection has been raised by several editors. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added two additional sources that directly describe Corsi as a conspiracy theorist to the article as per suggested by Collect. 128.59.169.46 (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caylee Anthony homicide

Can someone take a look at this - 1) It's full of unsourced statements about BLPs and their possible guilt and 2) It has a bio hidden in the article to get around the usual guidance on how articles about such matters such be written. --87.194.194.250 (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David M. Halperin

Politicsandletters (talk · contribs · count) continues to add plagiarism accusations based on a single self-published source. User has been warned several times. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Thanks for raising it. --Dweller (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Raniere: a challenge

This article is kind of a mess, and currently an edit war is going on. The subject is a somewhat controversial figure (see this article by Forbes), but the content doesn't reflect that. I've trimmed some of the more blatant promotional stuff (and NXIVM probably needs a going-over as well) and have issued 3rr warnings to the edit-warriors; one of them just crossed the line. I hope some of you will give the article the attention it needs--there are those of you frequenting this board who are much more capable than I am of writing a balanced and neutral article. I suspect there are COI issues as well, but that's just a hunch at this moment. Your help is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ケーキ姫

-no real name is mentioned in the article -false name is mentioned in thearticle "yuumi" -the person says in the article "being an youtube celebrity and net idol and niconico douga celebrity" -which is not true, because on youtube it has only 3270 subscribers at the moment - this was reached since 11 February 2010. -the person mentions only a youtube name -only one video reached 100.000 views, this is mentioned in the article but the video is titled Pray for Japan, where the person is reading japanese text from the monitor about the earthquake in Japan in March 2011 -also the person is not a youtube partner and the videos are full of foreign content and dont have a lot of views (or not enough to call itself a celebrity) - it looks like advertising for its "importancy" and it's twitter account to get follower —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.154.160.232 (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please could you tell us which article you're referring to? The header of this section renders on my machine as four neat boxes. --Dweller (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If your question is about the article on Japanese Wikipedia, please ask on ja:Wikipedia:利用案内.

ウィキペディア日本語版のヘルプは「ja:Wikipedia:利用案内」を参照してください。

ケーキ姫 is the Japanese name "Keekihime", and from the context I assume the user was referring to an article on Japanese Wikipedia about a sort of 'internet celebrity' (a Net idol), which is at ja:ケーキ姫. As far as I can tell, there has never been an article on English Wikipedia about that person. Chzz ► 12:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Petrino

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bobby_Petrino&action=historysubmit&diff=430565844&oldid=430378931

This user has been warned for vandalism several times since 2009, all over this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tag01 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed the entirety of that disputed and badly sourced paragraph about a living person. It seems to refer to a blog post that in turn refers to Wikipedia citing that blog post. I imagine that won't be the last of it, so I suggest you and others should watchlist the article too... and I also suggest that you raise, here or at the article's talk page, any other parts of the article that you feel are unreasonable, unbalanced, and/or not cited to reliable sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the paragraph I was disputing, it was the fact that it's even in dispute. The paragraph refers to a radio interview given that was transcribed to a blog. Nowhere has anyone disputed the account other than in the head of the guy that keeps vandalizing the page? tag01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tag01 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use blog posts as sources for controversial content about living persons, especially not blog posts that say things like "To those who have found your way here from Wikipedia’s entry on Bobby Petrino…Welcome!"

If the interview is discussed by reliable secondary sources then it might be suitable for mentioning in the article. Can you point us to any such discussion? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I've left "Zeke" a little note on his talk page about his slightly tendentious edits to this article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Kingman

I am the youngest grandchild of Ed and Nellie Kingman. I was born January of 1954. Brian Kingman is my cousin and was not born in 1954. He was born in 1953. G1027565 (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by G1027565 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A secondary source agrees with the 1954 date: Baseball-Reference.com.[6] —C.Fred (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A second source, John Anthony Kingman, Brian Kingman's brother, agrees with the 1953 date. User wikipedia user Pragmaticist. G1027565 (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subject's brother, if he can be verified as such, is a primary source.

An additional secondary source is Kingman's rookie card, which shows a 1954 birthdate.[7] —C.Fred (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Bukenya

His biography on wikipedia indicates that he attended st. Henry's College Kitovu. However information available indicates that he attended Old Kampala Secondary School instead if Kitovu. would please try to verify since that erroneous information is repeatedly quoted by media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obiang (talk • contribs) 08:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jessi Colter

According to the article, she was born in 1947, which would have made her 15 years old when she married Duane Eddy. I know this is wrong, but I'm not certain as to the actual year of her birth. I THINK it was 1943. Do you think someone could verify this info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.80.108 (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, there are some Google hits for 1943 but no RS from what I've searched. Connormah (talk) 04:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Popeil

I noticed this article in the New Pages backlog and decided that I'd fix it instead of slapping template tags on it. Because of my involvement in it I can't determine if there is significant notability to qualify for inclusion or if it qualifies for deletion. Any thoughts? Hasteur (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only see self published entries on social media, and write your own resume sites. John lilburne (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking in the Proquest newspaper archive I found one 1000-word profile of her, which may be sufficient to assert notability in conjunction with lesser mentions. One article calls her a "celebrity voice coach". I'll add some citations to the article and cut down the poorly sourced promotional material. Will Beback talk 22:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche_and_the_LaRouche_movement

Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche_and_the_LaRouche_movement appears to have become a laundry list of views not help dby (despicable) LaRouche but a host of people who are connected only marginally to him. As such, I suggest it should be focussed on positions connected to the name of the article - primarily his own stated views and the stated official vuiews of his movement, rather than containing every sort of "view" connected to anyone connected to anyone connected to anyone connected to LaRouche. The article is clearly under WP:BLP rules, and I suggest the current state has gotten a tad out of hand. I posted [8] in response to a comment:

It's actually a much more rigorously written article then many other "views" articles. See Political positions of Mike Huckabee or other articles in Category:Political positions of American politicians.

As I found no comparable example in the example given of "three degrees of separation' <g>, I would like to ask that others view the melange masquerading as an article. I know LaRouche is horrid etc. but WP:BLP applies to horid people as much as it does to saints. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed limiting the scope of the article's content. Outside opinions on the state of the article are welcome. Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any article or page that mentions living people falls under WP:BLP. But I don't see any specific violation alleged here. Which part of the policy at issue? Will Beback talk 00:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the part where stuff in a BLP should actually be related to the name of the article? Right now, the article includes stuff "three degrees of separation" from LaRouche. Which is a tad much. And I would say over 4K edits on the LaRouche related pages is a bit much for any single editor. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content is all about the "Views_of_Lyndon_LaRouche_and_the_LaRouche_movement", and third party responses to those views. It's thoroughly sourced. There's no BLP violation. Is there some specific material that you're concerned about? Will Beback talk 00:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I ask is that others weigh in on whether material at "three degrees of separation" belongs in this clearly BLP article. We already know your position, but somehow I would hope that Wikipedia is not a home for every factoid and opinion within "three degrees of separation" of the person who is ostensibly the subject. Wikipedia should not be the universal wastebasket of the encyclopedia world. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any "three degrees of separation" material in the article, so your question seems to be a straw-man argument. Please give an example of the material you think violates BLP. Will Beback talk 00:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK: 21st Century Science & Technology has published papers by entomologist J. Gordon Edwards, including one that urged the return of the insecticide DDT because he said it has "saved more millions of lives than any other man-made chemical. Dr. Edwards has no actual connection with LaRouche that I found, and the paper his not in any way a statement of Larouche. Not a statement of the LaRouche movement. Not a statement by any Larouche publication as any sort of position. They published an article by an unrelated person, who is thus "connected" with LaRouche here, and reaching "three degrees of separation" or more from LaRouche. Other articles compared environmentalist and anti-DDT campaigner Rachel Carson to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. is not any exposition of views, but a simple invocation of Godwin in an article. The book, by LaRouche followers Rogelio Maduro and Ralf Schauerhammer, denied that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)...' is also reaching - the claim is not that LaRouche holds the view, that his organization holds the views, that there is any actual connection to LaRouche in any way, but only that two of his followers hold a view! Maduro's writings were the basis for the Arizona legislature's passage of a 1995 bill to allow the production of CFCs in the state despite federal and international prohibitions. is clearly not related either to LaRouche at all, and hence has three degrees of separation from him as well. The "Greenhouse effect" hoax: a world federalist plot, another book by Maduro, says that the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a plot by the British royal family and communists to undermine the U.S.[137][138] It was cited by science writer David Bellamy.[139] Ditto. Three degrees removed from LaRouche at all and his "movement." LaRouche followers have promoted the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle -- "followers" (unnamed) is not exactly a strong connection to any sort of official "views" by Larouche or his "movement". Note 21st_Century_Science_and_Technology#21st_Century_Science_and_Technology does not assert that it presents any sort of official view of LaRouche. Alas - I note the editor who has many edits on that article. Too many BLP violations to count - including accusations of criminality, homophobia, and non-politically correct taste in music pitch. In short - a misch-mosch, melange, and laundry list of every conceivable criticism of Larouche, his followers, the followers of follwers, and people who are quoted by followers of followers of followers <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maduro was a follower of LaRouche, his books and articles were published in LaRouche publications, and other LaRouche writers made similar points. So there are zero degrees of separation between Maduro and the LaRouche movement.

Movements are known by their activities, not just their official position papers. If a movement repeatedly protests against climate change, then that's an indication of their interest on the matter.

Magazines are characterized by the writers they publish. While J. Gordon Edwards was not called a member of the movement, the movement published his works, effectively endorsing his views. That a LaRouche magazine carries articles by prominent climate change contrarians is further evidence of their position on the topic, a position so strong that they have been described as being at the "forefront" of climate change denialism.

The movement engaged in wide variety of attacks on Rachel Carson, to the extent that they are covered in reliable secondary sources. The sources are all good. If sources say that the movement attacked Carson by comparing her to a Nazi then it is appropriate to include that in an article on the movement's views. LaRouche has personally called Carson's view of DDT a "fraud",[9][10] so it isn't as if the people writing the material in his magazine have significantly different views.

As for the article in general, the material is all well-sourced and relevant. There aren't any clear BLP issues raised here. Will Beback talk 20:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IOW if a person who is not directly affiliated with LaRouche is quoted in a publication associated with a person who has had an article published in a magazine which is reportedly run by people who were associated with any association or movement connected with the LaRouche "movement", then those comments are fair game? As I said - "three degrees of separation." Thanks. Collect (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Are you talking about Edwards? He wasn't just quoted, his papers were published, repeatedly, by a LaRouche magazine and his views were endorsed by LaRouche. For example, one 2002 article in LaRouche's flagship Executive Intelligence Review magazine is titled "LaRouche to Bush: Overturn DDT Ban".[11] An editorial in 21st Century Science says, " If you want to save science—and human lives—the fight to bring back DDT, now being championed by that very electable candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., had better be at the top of your agenda."[12] This is clearly a view of the LaRouche movement, not a third-degree of separation POV. Will Beback talk 21:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah -- so if the NYT (for example) endorses a candidate, then every editorial position of the NYT is associated with that candidate, and all positions held by people who are quoted in those articles are connected to the candidate? To assert that a person speaks for the vague "movement" should at the very minimum require a direct association of the person with that undefined "movement." Suppose the official (not to suggest an unofficial one) newspaper of the CPUSA endorses a candidate for President - I take it that I could say "thus-and-such is associated with the CPUSA"? Sorry -- I only believe two impossible things before breakfast - the third one is difficult. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think most people would compare LaRouche movement publications with the New York Times. When I say "endorse" I did not mean it in the political sense. Surely you understand that. I meant it in the sense of "agree with". They published Edwards' attacks on Carson and the DDT ban, positions with which they agreed. No one is asserting that they agreed with him on anything else. Let's not waste time on straw man arguments. Will Beback talk 22:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the People's World example? If a person were, for example, endorsed for political office, would that make tthem allied with the CPUSA? This is not a straw argument - it is the idea of "guilt by association by association by association" which is at the heart here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about political candidates. We're talking about a specific policy position, one which the LaRouche movement clearly holds based on multiple primary and secondary sources. It's not a BLP violation to say that LaRouche and his movement oppose the ban on DDT when there are so many sources to support that assertion. Will Beback talk 23:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to rephrase When I say "endorse" I did not mean ... because it sound like something a character out of Lewis Caroll might have said. John lilburne (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Life would be simpler if words only had one meaning each. Will Beback talk 23:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think Collect has made his point. I've started a section on the article talk page to begin discussion which material may need to be removed or drastically altered. All are welcome to join the discussion, tyro or expert. Cla68 (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collect didn't make any point. He claimed that some of the views listed in the article are not held by LaRouche or the movement, and are instead held by those at "three degrees of separation" from the movement. That's clearly untrue. Will Beback talk 23:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ambika Soni

There has been a malicious attempt to keep changing Smt Ambika Soni's religion to Roman Catholic to which she is supposed to have converted from Hinduism. This is factually incorrect and she continues to be a practicing Hindu. I can confirm this as I am her Private Secretary. This malicious attempt is creating misinformation about a Public figure and a senior Minister of the Government of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psministerib (talk • contribs) 07:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the BLP to my watchlist. The disruption seems t have been going on for a few months - if it is replaced again without citation and or discussion please request WP:semi protection at the WP:RFPP - Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lauryn hill

Resolved

her birthday is listed as may 26th on wiki page, but the source attached [1] says may 25th and every time I change it, someone reverts it back. How can wikipedia get an artists birthday wrong when the source says otherwise?! someone please intervene or maybe I am just going crazy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.38.93 (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Epstein

Should we be including information about misdemeanors in an article about a professor (the charge involved in this diff is a misdemeanor)? --rgpk (comment) 15:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. In the ordinary course of things, I'd say not. Unfortunately, judging from the sources linked, this case has acquired an unfortunate political dimension. Since it seems confined to blogs for now, and the subject remains essentially a private person (see WP:NPF), I'd still say we should cut it, but with less conviction than previously. We had a discussion over a similarly ugly situation awhile back, involving a professor who'd written some emails expressing some rather inflammatory viewpoints which were unrelated to his reasons for notability - IIRC, we decided eventually to keep the information in the article, on the strength of the argument that this was a case people would be commentating about for years to come. Ray^Talk 15:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's true that he pleaded guilty, then it should stay. I don't think incest is a misdemeanor. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In such sensitive matters we should be going by verifiable facts, rather than what we think, but in this case you are right - incest in the third degree is a class E felony in New York.[13] Phil Bridger (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that he pleaded guilty to "attempted incest" which is (according to the court document) "A misdemeanor, 1 count, not an arrest charge, Not an arraignment charge". I'm not sure if the original charge still stands though there are reliable sources only for the original charge. --rgpk (comment) 17:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He plead guilty to attempted incest - a misdemeanor - It appears clearly to me the the headline charge was dropped on acceptance of the lesser charge which seems quite normal in America - you get charged with all sorts of extreme charges and then you are convicted usually of a minor offence. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Bd4mr-W0TFs/Td1lbkoRKYI/AAAAAAAAIKo/8yIyCTnHnFk/s1600/DavidEpsteinGuiltyIncest.JPG - actually he is not really notable or if he was it was only just and has now become a blp problem because he has turned into a one event misdemeanor rap sheet low notable person which imo we would do well to delete. Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to keep the details of the charges, especially if the felony charge has been dropped. The only part of the paragraph in question that relates to Epstein's claim of notability is the simple fact that he is on administrative leave. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. - it is also assumable that as he was not convicted of the felony that there would be no legal ability to keep him on administrative leave. Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that section, it took up a 3rd of his bio. That's way too much for a misdemeanor it seems to me. RxS (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should not be hosting this biography. There isn't enough independent, reliably sourced material to do anything much besides recapitulate his c.v. And pretty much all of the newspaper coverage - much of it sensationalistic - relates to his recent family and legal difficulties. That combination augurs very poorly for our ability to write a neutral, encyclopedic biography in this instance. It seems to me that deletion is the best approach in terms of harm reduction, and we're not really losing much encyclopedic information anyway. MastCell ^Talk 21:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MastCell - the article should be deleted. It was apparently created based only on the charges. The subject otherwise lacks sufficient notability to have generated much reliable biographical material. Yworo (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No decision on deletion can be made here. Anyone who thinks that the whole article should be deleted rather than just the content about the charges should start a discussion at WP:AFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bring it to AfD post haste - insufficient notability, and a misdemeanor conviction, IMO, is insufficiently relevant to a biography to make any difference. It should not be here. Collect (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I AFD'd it Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_L._Epstein RxS (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Carley

I am the subject of the article. Not sure why it is on here. Surely this is out of line with the general notability guideline? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kb123 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sent to AfD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Cunningham Agee

User:Omnibus170 17:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)It seems to me that someone who doesn't like Mrs. Agee has claimed POV issues with her article and that the objections aren't valid. Knowing Mrs. Agee just received a new doctoral degree, I checked her article for inclusion of this award and suggested a few other minor edits. Even though the POW banner doesn't necessarily mean an infringement of policy, it inherently casts a negative light. Would a Senior Editor please review this article for NPOV? The warning seems inappropriate and misleading. I blelieve it should be removed. Thank you.User:Omnibus170) 17:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After a little look it does look a bit over gushing. - THe NPOV template is not such a big issue just a pointer - try just copy editing and removing the excess flattery, especially any that is cited only to the subjects primary reports, and remove any WP:PEACOCK phraseology and you will have a more neutral article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through and removed the worst included offences and the NPOV tag, however, from a little glance at the talk page there may be serious offences of missing/excluded content that might warrant the tag return until a full picture of the subject as covered by reliable sources is presented. I dont have time to look into that now though. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user has requested that someone review the article now that new sourcing has been provided to see if the tags are still appropriate. I would request a third party rather than me make that review. Thanks! Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scientist (musician)

Hello, I received an e-mail from Hopeton Brown (also known as "Scientist"). In it, he notified me about false and misleading statements on the article that are negatively affecting his career. I cannot seem to find anything on there that is even negative, and everything appears sourced. (I am not certain about the reliability of some sources, however.) I have directed him here to continue this discussion and point out what is false in the Scientist (musician) article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

eric bolling

Eric Bolling's bio has been hacked and it was changed to say he is famous for a racist (or rascist as the fool spelled it) rant against President Obama. This is libelous information and must be changed immediately. Please return the bio back to it's original information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.35.17 (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rolled back vandalism. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vinnie Vincent

Resolved

– Information removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A series of editors is adding information about an arrest to the article. At this point the information is just that he was arrested, there are sources that confirm this. It does not appear to me to be appropriate since it is just an arrest. Opinions? GB fan (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Rhiannon

There is presently a discussion at Talk:Lee Rhiannon#"Hard-line pro-Moscow communist" regarding the inclusion of content about her alleged involvement with the Communist Party of Australia, and that of her parents. The proposed addition is mainly sourced to blogs and the publications of the Sydney Institute, a conservative thinktank. There has been a slow burning edit war over this content in the past weeks, and I feel the discussion would benefit from the participation of uninvolved editors. -- Lear's Fool _mobile 04:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged" involvement? This shows what I am up against. Her mother joined the CPA in 1936, her father in 1940. Her father was editor of the CPA newspaper Tribune. She herself grew up in the CPA and was a member of its successor, the SPA, for at least a decade, as she has said herself. These are not "allegations", they are widely known and incontrovertable facts, fully sourced, yet Greens editors continue to delete them because they find it embarrassing that one of their Senators was a communist. This is nothing but suppression of facts for partisan reasons. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 04:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome Lear's Fool's request for additional objective oversight. Chrismaltby (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The large addition that User:Intelligent Mr Toad is desirous to insert is imo totally undue and coatracking lots of stuff about her parents and appears a partisan attempt to assert she is a communist a claim she strongly denies. She has been a green party member for 21 years. Please also remember the article is about her and not her parents. Mr Toads usage of such external blogspots at this http://kurtrudder.blogspot.com/2011/05/greens-and-fundamentalism.html - is also against all wikipedia guidelines and policy.Off2riorob (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Rhiannon is more than capable of lying about her family's communist past in order to shore up votes. Members of the Australian or state Greens should not be allowed to edit her article - the conflict of interest is obvious. Paul Austin (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An IP is now edit warring to add the material. I think an uninvolved admin may be needed here. -- Lear's Fool _mobile 10:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisting editors based on their political affiliation is a VERY bad idea. Wikipedia has never required that editors be free of conflicts of interest, only that they don't let those CoIs prevent them from abiding by policy. If we banned Greens from editing (and were somehow able to implement that), it would present a strong risk of anti-Green bias in the article. If we then restored the balance by banning anti-Greens from editing as well, we'd end up with a very poor-quality article because there'd be nobody left with an interest in or knowledge of the subject. --GenericBob (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jona Lendering - accusations of racism(de-archived)

67.169.112.181 (talk · contribs) persists in adding this edit [14] based on a web petition signed by 1400 people and a web magazine. Note that the so-called 'academic criticism' is an article by "Saam Safavi-Zadeh is from Tabriz, Iran and is pursuing his graduate studies in the study of ancient Iran in France. Anna Djakashvili-Bloehm lives in France with a keen interest in studying ancient Babylon and Persia." There's been an ongoing web-based attack on Lendering and Wikipedia which may be the background to this. I'm not convinced it has a place in Lendering's article. 1400 seems extremely small. Dougweller (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rozanehmagazine.com is an unreliable source by default. It is obviously home-made. Iranian patriots have their say on ancient history. They promote the notorious Cyrus Cylinder fringe theory. Since Jona Lendering has written an unfavourable review of a book by Kaveh Farrokh, one of the theory’s main proponents, they attack Lendering. This is cyber-bullying. - Konstock (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice this and added a new section, merging. For several years that has been a web-based campaign against Jona Lendering which occasionally is taken to his Wikipedia article. An IP has recently been adding material about a petition signed by apparently 1400 people accusing Lendering of racism (the IP doesn't link to it, perhaps because the site is blacklisted, but it is at www.gopetition.com/petitions/jona-lendering-anti-iran.html. The last couple of todays I and another editor have reverted it. The IP has also been adding a link to an article[15] in a web based magazine which the IP describes as academic criticism although it isn't in anything resembling an academic publication and the authors are described in the article as "Saam Safavi-Zadeh is from Tabriz, Iran and is pursuing his graduate studies in the study of ancient Iran in France. Anna Djakashvili-Bloehm lives in France with a keen interest in studying ancient Babylon and Persia." A new bit is the addition to a link on Kaveh Farrokh's page (thus self-published) which says "More recently Dr. Kaveh Farrokh,a historian with the University of British Columbia, has prepared a critique that details Jona Lendering’s activities as a purported online historian,". Farrokh is actually a student counsellor at Langara College of Higher Learning[16] and although he has published books on the history of Iran his PhD is related to his professional career as a counsellor. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rozanehmagazine.com is not a WP:RS for anything contentious or controversial or disputed - it is only used on five other BLP articles. The www go petition is not notable unless reported in an independent reliable source, and even if it is , such an online petition is still of dubious value. Off2riorob (talk) 09:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The changes just got put in the article again - I noticed them while doing WP:RCP with huggle and reverted them before I noticed this discussion. Kevin (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A whoooooooole bunch more stuff about this has popped up on my talk page -- User_talk:Kgorman-ucb#Public_figures_are_subject_to_critiques. Kevin (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where I've written a bit about another BLP violation: Ironically, when the IP writes "Dr. Kaveh Farrokh,a historian with the University of British Columbia, this is also a BLP violation as it's making claims about a living person that aren't true. As I've said on Lendering's talk page and BLPN, he is a student counselor at Langara College of Higher Learning - see [17]. He has no degree in history or a related field. His PhD was in the field "Research, Educational and Counselling Psychology" which he received from the Department of Educational and Counselling Psychology - his specific subject was "The relationships among cognitive processes, language experience and errors in Farsi speaking ESL adults."[18] His 1988 MA Thesis was on "Patterns of adjustment of international students to the University of British Columbia".[19]. Dougweller (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked (not by me) as a sock of Rjbronn Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rjbronn/Archive is the old case. Dougweller (talk) 12: 33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Jaye P. Morgan biography

My Name is Michael Baiano,I was Jaye's first husband, Iwas Jaye P. Morgan's first husband,at that time she was band leader Frank DeVol's vocalist.Her manager Bullets Durgom got her a job as a singer on the Robert Q Lewis show,which was simal cast from New York. She flew back to Los Angeles where we were married on April 15 1954. I returned with her to New York after a brief honeymoon at the Raquet Club in Palm springs (Charley Farrellthe owner,had attended our wedding) we flew back to New York,as she had been given only four days leave from the Robert Q Lewis show,and a contract to appear on the Johnnie Carson that weekend. Our marriage ended in 1960. And I returned to Los Angeles. She's a terrific lady, we are still friends,speak on the phone occaisionally and took her to dinner a few times.

Kindest regards, Michael Baiano — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.129.27.43 (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael. To add a marriage we need a WP:RS a reliable source for the claim. I had a look round the internet but didn't find anything, do you know of any reliable locations these claims can be verified, without independent reliable verification we would be unable to add the details. Off2riorob (talk) 09:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I found a news article that confirms some of this; if anybody's got access to the LATimes archives, GNews searching the husband's name turns up a likely useful article behind their paywall [20] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Burleigh

Hello, I am writing again to alert you to the politically/racially motivated attack on me in your wikipedia page. Someone keeps inserting "Assyrian-American" into the entry. While my mother is of Assyrian origin, my father is American of Swedish/English/Irish origin. It would be therefore, equally accurate, under the standards this "editor" is using, to label me "Swedish-American author" or "English-American". Clearly, this is being done to associate me with some "other" ethnicity. I insist it be removed and kept OFF the first line of the entry. If the wiki editors deem it crucial to include my ethnic heritage, you MUST add the other part of the genetic pedigree, but I do feel this is racist. Thanks Nina Burleigh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.128.182 (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further, to my previous comments. In wikipedia, You do not see Cornel West, for example, identified in line one as "an African-American" writer. You do not see David Remnick identified as a "Jewish American editor." This is simply not done, even when writers take their ethnicity as a subject. Remove it from mine, and stop ethnic/racial labelling immediately! Nina Burleigh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.128.182 (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's incorrect to say Assyrian-American in the lead. You were born and raised in the U.S., which makes you American. There is no reason to emphasize any part of your ethnic background unless it is relevant to your notability. See WP:OPENPARA. I've corrected the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob_Newton_(footballer)

User claims to be Bob Newton and is removing negatively, but sourced, content from the article. Article is not necessarily "well" sourced on the negative information. I opened an SPI as the user has been using multiple accounts. User claims to have emailed the foundation over the issue. I have no vested interest either way, but I am not strong on BLP policy. Should the negative information be removed, as requested by the user, as there is only one source? Should more or better sources be found if available? Or should content stay as it is per WP:CENSOR?--v/r - T P 15:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have copy edited the entire article for NPOV.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch!--v/r - T P 18:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Unser

Wasn't Bobby Unser born in Albuquerque, NM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.215.147.160 (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be thinking of his brother Al. Bobby was born in Colorado Springs; a few years later the family moved to Albuquerque, where Al was born. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Malone

Article appears to be of living person (Olympic medalist), and while it includes a single reference at the bottom and used with footnote reference near start of article, most of the article appears to be largely unreferenced. I'm not sure what to do. 24.155.88.186 (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a refimprove tag to the article. The article needs to be cleaned up for tone also. It sounds like it was written by someone close to him. GB fan (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany York

I'm coming here as opposed to edit warring: one or several accounts have loaded this with trivia, including every tv and promotional appearance made by Ms. York; even her affinity for her dog is chronicled and edit-warred over. I'm asking for help--I'm happy to go in and clean this, but I am sure that whatever I remove will just be restored. It's a fanzine article. Any thoughts? 76.248.149.168 (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My contention is that a contributor is assuming ownership of the article [21], which includes the repeated removal of maintenance templates and retention of trivial information. Isn't there a Wiki guideline that reminds us that just because it's sourced doesn't mean it belongs? if I'm wrong on this I'd love to hear it from an admin. Thanks, 76.248.149.168 (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link, Bbb23, and for restoring the maintenance template to the article. My disclosure is that of having engaged in this issue under two accounts, not out of deception, but because my internet connection gets cut too frequently, and upon restoration I'm always gifted with a new IP. As for the article, there's a lot of sourced cruft, including specious interviews, that serve no purpose. My impression is that copyediting will meet with strong resistance from those who promote these contestants, or are just really dedicated fans of the pageants. 76.248.149.168 (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed a lot of stuff, but there's still too much trivial and promotional information. I've also added tags. As for your connection and varying IPs, why don't you register on Wikipedia? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dull story: I have, but rarely use my illustrious account anymore, feigning retirement and preferring to be an anonymous pain in the ass rather than creating articles and running them through the FA mill, etc. My I got tired of checking a watchlist that ran over 1,200 articles. Thank you for the help, and please keep an eye on this--don't be surprised if your improvements are overturned. Cheers, 76.248.149.168 (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just being a registered user doesn't mean you have to have an extensive watchlist or do any more than you do as an IP. It just makes things more consistent, makes you more identifiable, etc. 1,200 pages seems excessive - maybe you should try Wikirehab. :-) As for reversion of my edits, it wouldn't be the first time.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct on all counts. But a return to respectability would mean being recognized by my Wikifriends, with the inevitable expectation to re-engage within my field of primary interest. 76.248.149.168 (talk) 01:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Savage

Carrie Savage, voice actress (talk · contribs)

The user (apparently the article subject) removed unreferenced bio information (which can be seen in e.g. [22]), but also added 'commentry' to the article such as Whomever posted the previous information that was posted about me on this page should be ashamed, It is a travesty that sites like this exist where any body can just go around posting whatever they feel like [23] and suchlike; consequently their edits were reverted.

The unreferenced bio info has now been removed; however, the article still has no inline citations to reliable sources.

The user further raised their concerns on our helpdesk, Wikipedia:Help_desk#Carrie_Savage.2C_the_voice_actress - and as stated there, I thought this best raised on BLPN to get more attention. Best, Chzz ► 00:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The user has just been blocked for making legal threats. Chzz ► 00:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP user who introduced the problematic stuff to the carrie savage article has a decent number of other BLP edits that should be checked for quality, here. I'll look over some of them myself shortly. Kevin (talk) 03:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was taken to afd and no reliable sources were found, so I speedy closed the article as delete, and had the article history suppressed per the oversight policy because of private and negative content. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 21:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juice Plus

I'm having trouble with an editor (an admin alas) on the Juice Plus article who is insisting on incorporating a section about living people based on OR from a self-published POV source[24]. I originally took it to RS/N but not much input there yet. That discussion here, he is insisting that WP:BLP only applies to articles about people, not people mentioned in articles.--Icerat (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The text is also supported by the NEJM.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're seriously claiming a 1986 NEJM paper supports a claim about an association with authors of a paper published in 199&. The NEJM article was published in 1986 and the "association" you claim that paper supports was with a paper published in 1996. Care to explain exactly how that works?--Icerat (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll not comment on the substantive issue (not really looked into it as yet), but I think Icerat's user page may be relevant here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that would be relevant how? --Icerat (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you write about 'POV sources', your own POV is clearly also of interest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As is yours and everyone elses. Care to note why you haven't pointed out Doc James' clear POV on these kind of topics? In any case attacking the man and not the case is very poor form. It's a BLP issue based on a SPS source. Do you dispute that? --Icerat (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please spell out the problem. Yes, the edit you mentioned added text about a living person, but does that text fail WP:BLP? How? Is the text wrong? Does it fail verification? Is it undue? Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It fails WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPSPS - Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. --Icerat (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to look like the same arguments we got from User:Ronz who was using WP:BLP to try and squelch debate on the quality of and use of Stephen Barrett in the Weston Price article (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive97#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard) If you look at the disputed text and Barrett's The Rise and Fall of United Sciences of America paper as well as Therese Walsh's "Juicing for fun and profit: taking a good thing too far" article (reprinted in) Gale Group's 1997 Nutrition forum: Volume 14 Prometheus Books pg 36-39 (which says and I quote "Juice Plus capsules and many other dehydrated juice capsule products, including those from AIM and Juice For Life, are promoted as having enzymes that aid in digestion. These claims are just as false for juice capsules as for whole juice. Even the claim that juice capsules contain much the same nutritional value as the actual juice is unsubstantiated.") there doesn't seem to be a WP:BLP issue here.

Furtheremore, Nutrition forum: Volume 14 pg 36 has a sidebar which references quackwatch another of Stephen Barrett's sites which has Unconventional Cancer Treatments which has some more on United Sciences of America.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manny Pacquiao

Would this fall into a BLP violation? Neohertz wants to add acussations that Manny consumes drugs with reliable sources (according to him), but those are just allegations made by people who fought with him. Further information at Pacquiao talkpage. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 05:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry, I'm having trouble locating the source(s) that the editor wants to put in the article. I looked through the Talk page section and the recent article history and don't see what exactly he's trying to add and support. Maybe I missed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations done by his ring enemies only. Kinda gossip. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 01:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he doesn't have a source, it's kind of a no-brainer. He hasn't tried to add anything to the article, either. I wouldn't carry on a conversation with him, as you are doing, on the Pacquiao Talk page unless he comes up with something or attempts to change the article in an inappropriate way.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sayuki

Sayuki is a geisha in Japan in a very strict environment where geisha are not supposed to reveal their real names or ages. Sayuki has asked many times in the media that Western media do not treat her differently to other geisha by breaking geisha tradition. Please stop editing the Sayuki article to reveal her real name and age. It is not fair to her and it is harmful to her career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.11.87.75 (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Graham has posted her birthname on her official Sayuki website.[25] That pretty much renders your argument invalid. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sayuki's name has rarely been reported in the Japanese press as they are generally responsible but got out in the Western Press. Her age is not mentioned anywhere but here. Please remove it. This kind of transgression of geisha rules has an impact on the career of a living person. It is irresponsible to publish it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.22.75.199 (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It being irresponsible to publish it is not necessarily a great argument for removing it. However, since it's completely unsourced, I have removed the birth year for the time being. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bruggink

Would anyone have time to check this article? I noticed the writer of the article adding non-reliable sources elsewhere, but I don't have the time to see if this BLP is up to snuff. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS, in the event problems are found, the same editor has written several other BLPs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took the article to Afd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Bruggink, as he seems to be know for only mentions in the media for hunting for Osama bin Laden in the weeks prior to his death. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 19:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Farah

This is a very longstanding problem article, partially because due to vandalism in the past the subject (who is a conservative media personality) went on a campaign against Wikipedia for a time. Now there is an IP editor who has added in a self-referential mention of the campaign, including a direct quote of the vandalism that inspired Farah's anger in the first place. While normally it's fine to make well-cited self-references to Wikipedia controversies, in this case the content repeats slander needlessly and is only going to inspire further negative attention about our inability to police BLPs. There is discussion on the talk page, but the IP continues to revert it back in despite objections. Rather than get in an edit war over it further, I'd like to invite people with more experience with BLPs to take a look at the latest batch of contributions by the anon. I think some of them are just fine, but others have been reverted several times as BLP and/or NPOV violations. Steven Walling 23:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think that "inspiring further negative attention about our inability to police BLPs" is a reason not to include material in an article. We should be doing that better, anyway. However, I'm not certain about how notable the controversy is, or how much it should be quoted in reference to our BLP policy. I'm heading out, I'll come back later and voice my opinion more fully. For now, I've removed the questionable material as per BLP while the discussion is going on. Dayewalker (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Jewish categories

In the body of this article, it says that Gordon-Levitt's "family is Jewish." Other than a quote about a character he played in a movie, that's the sum total of what the article says about Gordon-Levitt and Jewish. Nonetheless, the article had two Jewish categories in it, American Jews and Jewish actors. I removed them, but All Hallow's Wraith, reverted referring in his edit summary to a previous "conversation". My assumption is he means this discussion on BLPN. That discussion also had to do with WP:BLPCAT, but the actor in question was Mila Kunis. For those brave souls among you, feel free to read the discussion. A threshold question was whether BLPCAT applies to Jewish because Jewish, according to many, can be an ethnicity, not a religion. I don't think that issue was resolved. Some editors suggested that the issue be further explored to try to reach a policy resolution. Will Beback asked Jayen466 to look into it. I don't know what came of it.

Here we are again, but there is a key difference. Without rehashing the arguments in the previous discussion, there is almost nothing in the Gordon-Levitt article to even indicate he's Jewish. By contrast, the Kunis article had much more. Thus, even if we put BLPCAT aside, there's no support for the categories, a relatively standard reason for removing categories. But I don't have the stomach to edit-war or even discuss this with AHW, so I'm bypassing the Gordon-Levitt Talk page - something admittedly I often tell other editors not to do - and coming directly here to try to stimulate some broader discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 542: / Line 542: @@
 This is a very longstanding problem article, partially because due to vandalism in the past the subject (who is a conservative media personality) went on a campaign against Wikipedia for a time. Now there is an IP editor who has added in a self-referential mention of the campaign, including a direct quote of the vandalism that inspired Farah's anger in the first place. While normally it's fine to make well-cited self-references to Wikipedia controversies, in this case the content repeats slander needlessly and is only going to inspire further negative attention about our inability to police BLPs. There is discussion on the talk page, but the IP continues to revert it back in despite objections. Rather than get in an edit war over it further, I'd like to invite people with more experience with BLPs to take a look at the latest batch of contributions by the anon. I think some of them are just fine, but others have been reverted several times as BLP and/or NPOV violations. <font style="font-family: Georgia">[[User:Steven Walling|Steven Walling]]</font> 23:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 : I don't really think that "inspiring further negative attention about our inability to police BLPs" is a reason not to include material in an article. We should be doing that better, anyway. However, I'm not certain about how notable the controversy is, or how much it should be quoted in reference to our BLP policy. I'm heading out, I'll come back later and voice my opinion more fully. For now, I've removed the questionable material as per BLP while the discussion is going on. [[User:Dayewalker|Dayewalker]] ([[User talk:Dayewalker|talk]]) 23:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
+== Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Jewish categories ==
+{{La|Joseph Gordon-Levitt}}
+In the body of this article, it says that Gordon-Levitt's "family is Jewish." Other than a quote about a character he played in a movie, that's the sum total of what the article says about Gordon-Levitt and Jewish. Nonetheless, the article had two Jewish categories in it, American Jews and Jewish actors. I removed them, but All Hallow's Wraith, reverted referring in his edit summary to a previous "conversation". My assumption is he means [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive104#BLPCAT_and_Jewish|this discussion on BLPN]]. That discussion also had to do with [[WP:BLPCAT]], but the actor in question was Mila Kunis. For those brave souls among you, feel free to read the discussion. A threshold question was whether BLPCAT applies to Jewish because Jewish, according to many, can be an ethnicity, not a religion. I don't think that issue was resolved. Some editors suggested that the issue be further explored to try to reach a policy resolution. Will Beback asked Jayen466 to look into it. I don't know what came of it.
+Here we are again, but there is a key difference. Without rehashing the arguments in the previous discussion, there is almost nothing in the Gordon-Levitt article to even indicate he's Jewish. By contrast, the Kunis article had much more. Thus, even if we put BLPCAT aside, there's no support for the categories, a relatively standard reason for removing categories. But I don't have the stomach to edit-war or even discuss this with AHW, so I'm bypassing the Gordon-Levitt Talk page - something admittedly I often tell other editors not to do - and coming directly here to try to stimulate some broader discussion.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 14:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards