Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

Up Series

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

References to Michael Apted's interview at the NFT have been deleted as contentious, despite verbatim reports being widely available. Until recently the transcript was available on the BFI/NFT website itself.

The references are reports of what Apted himself said, so it is not clear why this conflicts with policy on BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomintoul (talk • contribs) 16:16, July 16, 2012‎

As the admin who removed the contentious info based on an OTRS complaint, the purported interview statement I removed was being presented as a fact as opposed to an allegation. There was also a sentence that followed ("suggesting that his threat") which added additional supposition based on the original unsupported content.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What is an OTRS complaint?Tomintoul (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTRS. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The clash between Charles and Apted is reported both in the Radio Times and the Daily Telegraph.

www.radiotimes.com/news/2012-05-14/56-up-michael-apted-on-the-documentary-series-thats-spanned-five-decades

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/allison-pearson/9269805/Seven-Up-A-tale-of-two-Englands-that-shamefully-still-exist.html

I would be grateful for other editors' views on restoring the deletion by Ponyo. Many thanks.Tomintoul (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of the sources, the crux of the BLP issue is that Apted contends one thing and another party denies it. Apted's allegation of a threatened lawsuit could possibly be included along with solid sourcing, but his assertion that there was a lawsuit threatened cannot be presented as fact when it's contentious and denied. You also cannot add the second paragraph as it consists of conjecture (you can see this in the use of words such as "suggesting" and "it is not clear why"). If the material is to be included at all it should be a single sentence noting that Apted alleges that Charles threatened to sue and it needs to be solidly supported by the best sources available.Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Where are the denials?Tomintoul (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ponyo, as no other comments have been received are you happy for me to reinstate the material modified in line with your suggestion? I cannot find any public denials, so presumably the denial was from the subject on your OTRS complaint. Is that correct?Tomintoul (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

OTRS correspondence is private, I cannot provide any specific details outside of the general concerns I've already noted (and it does not change the validity of the BLP concerns). With regard to restoring the info, please wait to see if there will be additional comments here. If after a week of posting there is no input from others then we can look at the wording - with BLP concerns its best to get it right as opposed to rushing to restore disputed content.Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for you advice. We will revisit next week.Tomintoul (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

We should be able to continue a discussion on the talk page regarding the exact wording that would be BLP-compliant if any of the content is restored.Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Malcolm Gladwell

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

Malcolm Gladwell, pop science (etc) writer and sometimes alleged corporate shill, has appeared here before (example). Waggish SPA Dontletthemwin (whose realization that the first syllable of "Hoary" has another meaning is often repeated, and is most perceptive and utterly hilarious), brand new SPA Javierachile and various IPs are very keen on the "corporate shill" angle. I've no particular beef about that, but they do base their charges on ho-hum sources, and alleged shilling by Gladwell now amounts to a lot of the article. Broadly interested Sunray and SPA Jacobesau have been removing this material. Two recent contributions by this special-purpose IP have particularly interesting edit summaries:

1. Hoary, read the correspondence Gladwell initiated with the author of the SHAME report. He didn't claim libel, just tried to massage the truth. Like you.
2. Twisting the knife in PR scum.

I love to be accused of malpractice, stupidity, etc: if the accusations are funny enough, I add them to the list near the top of my user page. But "massager of the truth" is pretty feeble stuff. If only I'd been accused of being "PR scum" too! That certainly would have gone on the list. But no, a look at the edit shows that the (alleged) "PR scum" is not me but instead Gladwell.

Now, if I see a BLP (or anyway a BLP of somebody other than a mass-murderer) being edited by some IP-hopper who calls the biographee "scum", I'm inclined to undo the damage and to s-protect. But in this case doing so might look like sour grapes or a mere tantrum. (Certainly the IP is obsessed with me: he looks at Sunray's edits, and takes them to be mine.) So I warmly invite an uninvolved admin to consider (i) s-protecting the article for at least one month and perhaps also (ii) threatening to crack a few heads. (Mine?)

There's some additional background material here (a WP:RS/N archive). -- Hoary (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

There appear to be two areas of controversy in the article, the first about the prices he charges for speechs, and the second about his corporate conflicts. The first area, which is in the Career section, has problems, not the least of which in my mind is how relevant all of this information is. That aside, the overall tone is non-neutral. Rather than reporting facts, it characterizes the facts in a POV way. In addition, it leaves out balance. For example, the quote about 30 speeches and thousands of dollars, leaves out that the source also said he sometimes gives speeches for nothing (comes right after the quote in our article). The Washington Post thing is really silly. It's a good source, but all our article does is note the headline - misleading and not very helpful.

The conflict material is worse. The Exiled source should be out. The sinister reference to an internal Philip Morris document is unsupported - the cited source is just the Washington Post article, no internal anything. The sentence after that is unsourced. The BofA stuff is repeated (already in the first part). Again, more importantly, the overall tone is wrong. It smacks of WP:SYNTHESIS and general editorializing.

Not sure what to do with the mess. I suppose semi-protecting it would help so that non-neutral editors can clean it up. It would certainly remove the IPs, but I haven't been able to sort out all the new accounts (are they related perhaps?), but, for example, I believe Dontletthemwin is auto-confirmed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The "sinister" internal Philip Morris document exists and is sourced in the SHAME report. A constructive editor would have double checked the source and added the reference, even if it was missing or improperly cited in the Wikipedia page. √√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√√Dontletthemwin (talk) 03:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page;jsessionid=D418108EA3AFEAEF5B928624F3B4CFA8.tobacco03?tid=utg11b00&page=5 √√√√√Dontletthemwin (talk) 03:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

There are/were some blatant violations of WP:BLP in this article, IMO. In the past two weeks I have twice removed a text-book example of original research [1], [2]. The editor who is adding this material is writing from a particular POV and is using Gladwell's own writing and a couple of unreliable sources to draw conclusions about Gladwell's speaking engagements.

I agree with Bbb23 about the use of The Exiled as a source. While the authors of this blog-type website are ex-journalists, the publication is not peer-reviewed and doesn't meet the tests of WP:IRS and WP:VER. The article on Gladwell in Exiled [3] does not use reliable sources itself and draws conclusions that do not stand up to analysis

I commend Hoary's valiant attempt to reason with the POV-pushing editor in question on the article talk page and to bring the discussion here. I certainly agree that semi-protection is warranted, along with warnings and blocks to any editor who perpetrates the BLP violations. There is a fair amount of criticism in the article as it stands. We need to ensure that this is properly balanced. Sunray (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I've noted your removals and am waiting to see what, if anything, happens next. That will affect any decision I make (another admin may feel differently) about semi-protection. If you have a moment, you might also want to address the "high price" speaking engagement material. It, too, is problematic as I commented above.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at the paragraph on "high priced" speaking engagements. The language used in our article did seem indicative of a particular POV as the sources simply raised questions about the optics of the Bank of America's publicity for their three engagements featuring Gladwell. Two of the sources reported Gladwell's response, so I've added that as a quote. Hopefully it is now more neutral in tone. Agreed that the response to these edits bears watching. BTW, I've added warnings about violations of WP:NOR for Javierachile and 50.47.103.17. Sunray (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, that paragraph may give undue weight to the whole Bank of America issue, which seems pretty unexceptional once the anti-corporate spin is removed. Sunray (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is a fine exploration of the exaggerated sense of importance of pseudonymous Wiki-editors. The core of the Gladwell page dispute is the assumption that criticism like the SHAME feature should not be included, regardless of the evidence. Rather than performing a modest fact-check with a dash of integrity, which makes the SHAME account of Gladwell's career self-evident, the entry has been locked-down by the web's equivalent of Small Claims Court bailiffs. (Again, it is noteworthy that the standard applied to other criticisms on Gladwell's page, which are matters of opinion, are a joke. Who cares if someone doesn't like his writing? Does that discussion belong in an encyclopedia?) The SHAME report documents serious ethical violations which throw the career of a celebrated author into sharp relief. The report, moreover, has prompted Malcolm Gladwell himself to contact the author. Not with a legal threat over libel, which one with Gladwell's resources could easily assert, but a milquetoast rejoinder that somehow an investigative reporter didn't understand the ironic gag about PR whoring for big business. If the wealthy, world-famous Gladwell and/or his lawyers have read the SHAME report and not found it actionable, then it is obvious that the stance of volunteer Wiki-editors can only be described as censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.103.17 (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• This discussion is a fine exploration of the exaggerated sense of importance of pseudonymous Wiki-editors. Whose exaggerated sense of this?
• The core of the Gladwell page dispute is the assumption that criticism like the SHAME feature should not be included, regardless of the evidence. Wrong, it's that criticism has to come from sources that really matter. ("Lamestream" sources, as they're sometimes called by those outside the reality-based community.)
• Rather than performing a modest fact-check with a dash of integrity, which makes the SHAME account of Gladwell's career self-evident [. . .] It's Shame's synthesis of alleged facts. Can you present a synthesis in, say, Mother Jones?
• Who cares if someone doesn't like his writing? Does that discussion belong in an encyclopedia? Potential book-buyers, perhaps? Me, for example. Having had my head pounded by all the repetition in The Tipping Point, I need to know that the author isn't as repetitive before I try him a third time. (The second was Blink, a lot better.) Does it belong in an encyclopedia? Certainly, though such criticism of living writers is disappointingly muted. (Take Dan Brown, for example: there's criticism from only one source, and a disappointing silence about the volleys of criticism from Geoff Pullum and others.)
• The SHAME report documents serious ethical violations which throw the career of a celebrated author into sharp relief. With relief thus sharpened, we can expect that the report, and the violations, will be taken seriously by, and the gist reiterated by, other sources, not all of which are in thrall to Gladwell or his alleged puppetmasters. Why the rush?
• The report, moreover, has prompted Malcolm Gladwell himself to contact the author. Not with a legal threat over libel, which one with Gladwell's resources could easily assert, but a milquetoast rejoinder that somehow an investigative reporter didn't understand the ironic gag about PR whoring for big business. (i) I like "milquetoast", a word that's used too seldom. (ii) "Whoring": the author and User:Dontletthemwin share a liking for this word. Could they be related? (iii) A "milquetoast rejoinder" -- terrible! Shame's own interpretation is that Gladwell is showing signs of cracking". So let him crack. The cracking of Gladwell will surely get into the news media (which may be wary of actual content, but which love a "human interest" story). And there you are: "reliable sources".
• it is obvious that the stance of volunteer Wiki-editors can only be described as censorship. A bit of work with a good thesaurus will provide plenty of alternative formulations: "timidity", "mealymouthedness", "judicious omission", etc etc.

-- Hoary (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Hoary's Wikipedia editing rule of thumb: If Anderson Cooper didn't report it, it didn't happen.

√Dontletthemwin (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy your little fantasies about me, Dontletthemwin. -- Hoary (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This amounts to a lengthy refusal to confront that a favored author has violated the most basic ethical rules. It speaks to an intellectual passivity that allows frauds like Gladwell to function - nothing new there, unfortunately. Here's a link to more crime-enabling, this time at Lehman's, but you may dismiss it because Reuters is a strictly fly-by-night operation. http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/07/24/jumping-to-conclusions-malcom-gladwell-edition/ As for "Why the rush?", let's discuss "Why the contorted denials?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.103.17 (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem a bright enough fellow, 50.47.103.17. I therefore wonder why it is that you can't grasp simple concepts, e.g. that although violations of basic ethical rules occur all the time, it's not WP's job to report them. Before apoplexy fells you, let me add that although violations of basic ethical rules are whitewashed all the time, it's not WP's job to report this whitewashing either. Look, just read and digest WP:V and the other WP policies. Admittedly, these make for unexciting reading. So another option open to you is just to go away, safe in the confidence that what's written by Exiled, Shame and the rest will soon make it into "established" ("lamestream") publications, whereupon it can go into WP.

You say: Here's a link to more crime-enabling, this time at Lehman's [. . .] http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/07/24/jumping-to-conclusions-malcom-gladwell-edition/ Now you're talking! Or anyway seeming to. Let's take a look.

Salmon (your author) says that Frank Partnoy says Lehmann Brothers:

brought in Malcolm Gladwell, who had just published Blink, a book that speaks to the benefits of making instantaneous decisions and that Gladwell sums up as “a book about those first two seconds.” Lehman’s president Joe Gregory embraced this notion of going with your gut

and handed out copies of Blink. Salmon says that Andrew Sullivan thereupon asked "Did Malcolm Gladwell cause the recession?"

Yes, Sullivan did indeed ask that. But he was too busy/lazy even to attempt an answer. Salmon doesn't attempt an answer either, but he does ask Gladwell. More particularly, he asks Gladwell (more or less) "Did you (A) destroy Lehman Brothers, or (B) screw up the world?" (Ah, the smell of good two-fisted journalism!) Gladwell's reply is interesting. Two of its points: (1) the book describes the power of fast thinking -- including its destructive power and dangers; (2) the talk he gave was about the “fragility” of gut decisions–and about how if they are to be useful they have to be defended against bias and corruption. I've no idea about the truth of (2). As for (1), it is true. Salmon perversely ignores this, instead sarcastically saying that (2) is true. It's almost as if Salmon is upset (something prompts him to make a tragic misspelling of Partnoy's name).

This is feeble stuff by Salmon: starts well, but turns into what looks like a tantrum at having been outfoxed. Not as feeble as Sullivan, but feeble all the same. -- Hoary (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hoar, let me see if I understand your position on sources: Internet-era independent news media publications cannot be used for BLP entries. That about right?

Dontletthemwin (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. -- Hoary (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I know, I read it. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Check.

Dontletthemwin (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

So if an internet-era independent news publication has such a reputation, it's fine. ¶ Just what is supposed to constitute such a reputation is sometimes unclear. Despite plentiful evidence (PDF example) that MSNBC is bad, CNN is worse, and "Fox News" is horseshit, a great number of WP editors insist (e.g. here) that even "Fox News" should be treated as a news source. -- Hoary (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Even when you're succeeding with this klutzy coverup, Hoary, your bias glows like Vegas neon, flashing weak tells that lead to even more questions ("your author"? "tantrum at being outfoxed"? conflating WP policy with your personal opinion?). This breezy abuse of process is another feature of censorship, putting the cart of received opinion before the horse of embarrassing revelation. Regardless, I appreciate the admission that the corruption of WP editors allows blind spots in the historical record. But that also raises the issue of this page's existence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_fraud While no one has accused Gladwell of lying outright (as of yet he, and you, are just trying to conceal the facts), the various accounts wallow in ethical violations by living persons, including stealthing WP edits. Last note: thanks for the backhanded compliment, but if we're baring our souls I don't think you're too bright. You come across with enough education to embarrass yourself, but not enough to understand an operator like Gladwell. You'd better leave that to the pros.

Mike Murdock

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

There are many defamatory statements being made on this individual and there are no sources for this information regarding his personal life. Wikipedia is a fact based informational source only.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.138.148.10 (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is not protected. You could remove the unsourced statements youself. You may wish to read WP:COI, WP:SPA, and WP:POV in case those may apply to you and other editors.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You've not cited any example for the many defamatory statements claim. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC).

I just looked at the article, and it's honestly disgusting. I'd have tried to get it deleted as a negative, biased BLP, but that has been attempted before. I will attemt to trim some of the bias and cruft off. If it were me as the article's subject, I'd try asking to have it deleted under WP:BIODELETE. --Nouniquenames (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Marco Rubio

• Marco Rubio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm concerned about recent edits to this article, by User:Meduban. As I note on the talk page (this section), there's now a lot of WP:OR and editor commentary in the article section in question (parents' immigration history). (There are also problems of waiting for consensus -- he is repeating the edit despite being reverted by multiple editors.) Meduban has gone to NPOVN, but I fear his post there is so long that no-one will read/respond. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The edits in question are to a single section of the article, corrected after I read the original short version, and (i) compared it to the cited Washington Post (WP) article, and (ii) after I read a description of the Senator's wife, simply as a former cheerleader. In it's brevity, it appeared to leave the reader hanging, with an incomplete, and somewhat negative perspective on these matters. This conclusion was reinforced when it was discovered that WP article contents that were seemingly negative were included, but that the response of the Senator's office that was exculpatory was omitted carte blanche from the short article version Nomo... is arguing to maintain.

Here, following, is the entry I wrote to bring this to the attention of the NPOVN, which was registered because there was no action given by Nomo... to actually engaging proposed content changes. Response was simply to revert.

Hence, I disagree with Nomo...'s representation of the matter, stated above: My sense/understanding is that this is a single editor v. editor issue: Nomo... seems to be the only one with issue as to content: (There is another editor that seems to be concerned regarding process, Rrius.) Note, both were informed of the NPOVN submission, to allow for a full and complete exchange there.

The question now, is, how should the article remain, until this content matter is adjudicated.

Nomo... has repeatedly declined to engage the proposed content addition in any rigorous or systematic way; rather, the solution has been to revert to the shorter, less content-filled, less-citation rich, shorter version.

I am now stating flatly, in response to the resistance to what strikes me as simple, academic, fair changes to the text aimed at making it more citation- and fact-based, that this is a case of bias with regard to the original short version.

If a course is to be taken, then, this **short version section should not remain in place** while this is being adjudicated. The section should be removed on the whole, until the matter is resolved. This is how the matter is handled in science areas, when the factual basis of a section is called into question; there is never any issue of leaving a section in place if factual accuracy is questioned. Alternatively, the long version can be left in place, and edited down as substantive challenges to its factual content are agreed upon. Either is fine by me.

Regardless, given the time and care that I, as a faculty member, have given to this matter, I believe onus should be on Nomo... and any others beholden to the original short content, to respond to the specific comment-focused comments contained in the NPOV entry below. I.e., why is it better to leave in a wrong name for the Senator's wife, a limited description of her occupational background, and the claims of the WP article on one side of the issue but not the Senator's reply to WP claims **that appear in the same WP article**? And why should the point not be made that the Rubio web pages have indeed changed since the original WP report, and are now more carefully written, and that the passport evidence is consistent between WP and Rubio accounts, and that current Rubio pages at the WP are noncontroversial? Why should these facts of the case not all be set before readers, to make their own decision, rather than the omitting more than half, and letting stand a seemingly biased short version.

Please, instead of accusing of edit-warring, address the substance of what is below. Meanwhile, omit the short as clearly half the story, at best, or leave in the full, as more fair.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Meduban (talk • contribs) 20:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Errant nonsense. Claiming to be a professor does not give you special status. Unless the existing article violates BLP or is unreferenced, it is entitled to remain as is until consensus exists to change it. You do not have some special powers to get around the normal process just by being an expert. You don't even claim on your user page that you are an expert in this topic. There isn't even proof you are an expert at anything, with the possible exception of ignoring calls to read guidelines. You have done that well enough to get blocked, and then simply made the same silly arguments that you are allowed to edit war because you think you are special. To address two points in your second-to-last paragraph, it doe not use a wrong name for her. She was not named Rubio until after they got married. The former name is the proper one to use when saying "[husband] married [wife]". And it is an article about Marco, so outlining her early job as a bank teller, her "interests in fashion design", and hosts bible study at home is pointless and excessive. It is hard to take seriously your claims that you have no bias here when you repeatedly call Rubio "the Senator" and seek to add unnecessary features-style fluff to a politician's article. -Rrius (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, Rrius, but that isn't pointless nor excessive (unless the cheerleader bit is also such, and you have not made that argument). I am in support of the additional information concerning her, at least as it is described here. (I might make my way there and try to fix it if everything else on the to-do list gets done.) --Nouniquenames (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Irina Slutsky

• Irina Slutsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could somebody please delete this revision (diff)? It was an anon saying something pretty offensive. Thank you. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I went to the article. The entire paragraph seems to be gone now.Coaster92 (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think they may mean a rev-delete. It is an old edit and seems a rev-delete may be in order.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes Coaster92, for that type of vandalism wp:revision deletion is the best idea, so that nobody has to see it again (the criteria for which are here). It seems there are no admins on this board? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 16:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done - rev-deleted. JohnCD (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Cross-posted requests deserve cross-posted thanks. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all, I did not know.Coaster92 (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

James Eagan Holmes‎

• James Eagan Holmes‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event
• Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event

Should This guy get a separate article from his bio at 2012 Aurora shooting? He is notable only for the single event. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• This sounds like a question for a deletion/merger discussion; I don't see the BLP issue. -Rrius (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• I dont see any issue here other articles that have had the same turnout include: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nidal Malik Hasan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Lee Loughner, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anders Behring Breivik If this does goto AfD I have the feeling the result will be similar. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • That's partly because one doesn't take mergers to AFD, and AFD and the administrator deletion tool form no part of the article merger process and are not involved at any stage. Project:Articles for deletion is for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• I believe it is a BROADER Wikipedia issue. This is the one-time event of a crazy person, whomever the person turns out to be, and whether or not the current suspect is that person. Wikipedia should not make each crazed-spree killer into a "hero" with his/her own Wikipedia page, at least not if Wikipedia does not want to be a part of the incentive for other would-be-spree-killers to kill so that they, too, can have their own Wikipedia page to gain significant long-term attention and recognition from a single horrendous act. In other words, Wikipedia, by providing an essentially in perpetuity memorial page to a spree killer, merely for killing a bunch of folks in a single event, positively—yet perversely—incents these acts in the warped mind of a perpetrator. N2e (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely no question. The exact situations for which WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP were designed. An admin needs to redirect and lock it NOW. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on analysis from Black Kite, I am no longer sure that the redirect would be the most appropriate thing in this situation. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't take a crystal ball to know that this is going to generate a large enough article for content forks to be created. And the idea that we're somehow granting someone a special recognition by giving them a Wikipedia page is simply silly. Infamy is just as notable as fame. However, in the interest of article focus and proper development of content forks, it would probably be best for the article on the Shooting and the Shooter to be merged for now. This will make sure all edits get properly vetted by the same editors. They will be re-forked again eventually, that is something that is unquestionable. The only question really is whether it helps more to push them together first or leave them separate. -- Avanu (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

2011 Yuma shooting has no forks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The two are not comparable. GiantSnowman 13:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

We can't know from before if there will be any forks and what these are going to be. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Mathew Wilkinson - Australian Actor

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

I am Mathew Wilkinson the actor, the picture on the page is not of me. Can this please be deleted. I am happy to provide a picture for its replacement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkinsons11 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have temporarily hidden the image, but am not familiar with the actor and do not have time to do research to see if there is substance to either side of the claim. Can someone follow up? -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we can safely say the original uploader was....err...not reliable --> see Queer men. Hint: check deleted contribs...to the actor, our sincere apologies. The image will be deleted.Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be  Done.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Bibi Aisha

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

I reworded a portion of the article (its information was based on a recent CNN story) because the tone of the portion was inflammatory, and the content of the CNN article appeared to be editorialized by the Wikipedia editor. Those edits were reverted without discussion on the talk page, and simply re-added because the information was sourced to CNN. While CNN is a reliable source, we shouldn't be making their content MORE subjectively reported. Anyway, I don't want to get into an edit war, and would like someone else to have a look. Thanks.98.94.58.75 (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I read the article and the CNN piece. The information seems to be taken from the reference, which btw is not listed as a reference this time around. I agree the tone of the paragraph is not appropriate and the language and style are somewhat inflammatory. I do think it would be appropriate to include more detail than was included in the previous version. What is your feeling about including more detail but re-writing the information in a more neutral tone?Coaster92 (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that is perfectly acceptable. Neutrality of tone is probably the biggest issue I see here. In reality, the Wikipedia article would be discussing the mental health state of someone, paraphrased from a single journalist, who chose things to add to their story after a conversation with a psychiatrist, who had initially spoken to Aisha. If we are that many degrees of separation away from a primary source, I feel that we have to be very neutral in order to be responsible editors. Bottom line, yes, I think that's fine. The only thing I would worry about is making sure we aren't simply paraphrasing that entire article to the point of near-plagarization. 98.94.58.75 (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

98.94.58.75 is misrepresenting the quality of the edits. There was nothing paraphrased from a single journalist, who chose things to add to their story. The paraphrasing of behaviour was taken from direct quotes by Bibi Aisha's own carers, ie: no degree of separation. The actual words were used with the only paraphrasing being a re-arrangement to avoid a copy vio. Wayne (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not think it appropriate to include detail on her psychiatric problems. They are not the reason she she is notable, though it is relevant that they exist. They can therefore be mentioned, but should not be covered in detail, under the basic principle of proportional coverage. Relying on a single journalist for BLP of this sort is not acceptable. As far as i can tell, these details have appeared only in a single story in one newspaper, & one story in CNN--where all the details are not presently visible, so repeating them here would be an outrageous violation of WP:DO NO HARM, the basis of our BLP policies. I have removed almost all of that section, and will regard restoration of the contents as a BLP violation, unless my view turns out to not be the consensus of others experienced in problems like these--which I very much doubt. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I ask the advice of some other admin experienced in this about revision deletion. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out that CNN was not the source. The source was a two page article in The Advertiser, a News Limited publication. I feel that the new version, while better than that of 98.94.58.75, is too sparse regarding her background since entering the U.S. and in fact now implies she was moved by her carers to Maryland when it was her own choice and without the knowledge of those caring for her. I believe WP:HARM supports inclusion of some of the deleted text in some form and I'm happy for it to be discussed here. I dont intend to edit the article again so will accept this boards suggestions regarding what should be used and leave it to you to make whatever edits are required. As the News Ltd article is not available on the net I can email a scan to anyone who wants a copy. Wayne (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with DGG that that it is important here to observe BLP guidelines. This is an article about Aisha's struggles, including the PTSD that has prevented her from having the surgery for which she came to the US. I think it would be fair to mention some of the background related to this decision, not just general statements, though I agree not a gossip piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coaster92 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Joy Behar

Would someone please delete this edit diff Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Also several others by the same IP Jim1138 (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

All of 58.106.163.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) probably should be deleted. Jim1138 (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Monica Macovei

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

Hello, I would like to bring to your attention an anonymous edit alleging drinking problems of former Ministry of Justice Monica Macovei. The edit was from 89.136.42.120.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.97.9.145 (talk) 10:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The BLP is a trainwreck. I removed the "drinking alllegations" but someone should take pruning shears to the entire article - it is a political silly season exemplar for the EU and Romania . Collect (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Robin Brooke

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

Article on a former All Blacks player features some very prominent (tabloid style) allegations which I think are undue and a violation of our BLP policy. Thoughts on how to deal with it appreciated. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the first one is fairly well sourced. If he did pay reparations, like it or not that is seen as an admission of guilt. I am wary of the second one 'Allegations of' are very tabloidy and until resolved one way or the other quite prejudicial. The only reason to include them would be that it does indicate a possible pattern of behaviour. If there was only the second one, I would say remove, but it is supporting/supported by the first... Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

De-TABLOIDED the first claim - the second claim is insufficiently sourced for a contentious claim in a BLP. Collect (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Remove this page and urls to it - Raymond Hoser

NLT --- Collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Raymond Hoser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Subject: False, defamatory and hate mjaterial about me on wikipedia Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 22:26:51 +1030 Please remove the entire page at: Raymond Hoser This material is false, defamatory and incites hatred. Attempts to edit are continually blocked trolls within wikipedia including users Mokele and User:HCA Who have automated settings to revert to lies any pages we try to alter. The webpage also breaches trademarks as does your "snakeman" pages so please remove them as well. As it is not within your ability to publish truth or abide by the laws of trademarks and misleading conduct, please remove the pages forthwith. Furthermore remove the words "Raymond_Hoser" from any and all wikipedia url's including non-English ones. A copy of this e-mail is being sent to my lawyers. Thank you. Snake Man Raymond Hoser Snakebusters - Australia's best reptiles Phones: (Redacted)

Brian Ross (journalist)

Brian Ross (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Approximately half of this article is devoted to "blunders" and "controversies." Isn't that a bit over-weighting the negative for a BLP? CheeseStakeholder (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

While the word 'blunder' might be an issue, I don't think having all his idiotic statements listed is a problem. They're all well-sourced. Hot Stop 12:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That they are well-sourced isnt really an argument to keep them ALL though is it? A selection of the most blundery under a heading of 'has made many which include' etc would probably cover it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that they're well-sourced, but the volume is what troubles me. If his main reputation is as a screwup, so be it. But we need to grapple with this. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The theme of his blunders certainly has been covered, for example in this Politico.com article that's cited in the wiki article. Not all of what's in that section is about blunders—for example, the bit about Michelle Bachman's bodyguards tackling him seems more sympathetic to him than to her. Furthermore, the blunders seem notable—the blunder about bentonite in the anthrax samples after 9/11 actually had a significant impact on the debate about going to war with Iraq. Similarly, the blunder about the recent Aurora tragedy actually had a serious effect on the person erroneously named. These blunders are well documented, not just gossip. I'm personally very sympathetic to the argument that there is undue weight being given to these blunders, but I think if someone feels that this article is unbalanced, there needs to be some evidence that the article's presentation is skewed other than just the size of the section on blunders. Abhayakara (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

He's definitely made his share of blunders, and I haven't tried to remove any of the controversies listed. However, the overall impression I get from reading this article is that Brian Ross is a total screw-up and phony. That may be an accurate impression, but something in the pit of my stomach makes me uneasy and I have a general concern that that the thrust of the article is not neutral.CheeseStakeholder (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Just because something is "well-documented" doesn't make it encyclopedic. Hundreds of reliable sources documented what Justin Bieber did on his birthday, but that doesn't make it relevant. A few examples, if they were particularly notable, is one thing. Just a running list is something else. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The quandary here is that most of the controversies seem relevant. My concern is whether we've got a hit piece here and whether its overall impression of the man is accurate. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• If we agree that some belong, perhaps the place to start would be deciding which ones could go. For example, the Howard Dean thing and the Bachman one seem fairly minor and unimportant. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's the problem, though: the State Trooper story was arguably bogus, and was one of a series of journalistic embarrassments that probably affected the outcome of the election. It's poorly sourced in this article, but the incident itself is pretty significant. Guppie42 (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a pretty good interview from UPenn. I don't think it's necessarily the best source, because it's an interview with him, but it might be a good place to look for leads. Guppie42 (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Gawker.com does seem to have it in for Ross, and that may be part of where this is coming from. Here is an example of a story from gawker on Ross that seems pretty weak. Ross says in the interview I linked above that he's experienced a fair amount of retaliation, so it's not out of the question that the theme we're seeing here is part of that. Guppie42 (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest also that interested parties go to the talk page. At present the discussion there is dominated by an IP user. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Bernard Sherman

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

I refer reference number 4 on the biography of Bernard Sherman. I would like to know more on the source of this statement. Also the link provided for the article is also not available. Request your help.

4.^ Barry Sherman is known to law enforcement intelligence to be a business associate of Vito Rizzuto and other members of the Montreal Canada based crime family. The Rizzuto family own a large indirectly held share position in Apotex. In Pictures: 10 Billionaire Family Feuds - Forbes.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.129 (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done It seems someone deleted it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

John Atta Mills

He is now dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.212.61.5 (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed he is, as indicated at John Atta Mills.--ukexpat (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Cliff Stanford

• Cliff Stanford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You can see on the talk page that an editor, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, has been deleting sections of this page for quite some time.

Note: Cliff Stanford, the subject of the article, has edited the page himself. As a result, the page deserves extra attention to remain in line with Biographies of Living Persons. However, Wolfowitz's edits in question don't seem to be focused on the actual court case which was revised by Stanford.

I've requested more information but the only response from the editor is via revisions on the history page.

Wolfowitz refers to SPS; however the citations deleted are www.guardian.co.uk, www.friendsandrrelations.com and news.bbc.co.uk - there are no self-published sources removed by the edits.

His recent revision cites "convicyed criminal polishing his own biography, taking it out of compliance with BLP requirements". This would obviously be cause for concern, but Wolfowitz's changes to the page predate the edits done by Stanford. That is to say, this is a retroactive justification for revisions made without grounds in the first place.

The back and forth is becoming silly. Attempts to discuss the issue directly with Wolfowitz via the talk page have come to nothing, hence my bringing it to general attention here. My standpoint is that statements with valid citations should not be deleted without valid justification. The focus on family members and derogatory references to the subject makes me wonder if Wolfowitz is responding based on personal judgements rather than citations. AkaSylvia (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• 1) Friendsandrelations.com is not a WP:RS. 2) The Guardian article only gives the girlfriend's name as "Sylvia" -- we don't know what her surname is. 3) The BBC article doesn't mention Stanford at all and so is irrelevant here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the numbered list. Those are clear issues that make sense. Point 2) Full name is used at http://va.issproxy.com/resourcecenter/publications/Corporate_Governance_Highlights/02-32.pdf which fixes that problem. AkaSylvia (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• The Guardian article is also 12 years old, which is well beyond the acceptable range for documenting current relationships. See generally my comment here [4]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Even if someone calls you a "vandal" repeatedly, and even if that person claims to be the article subject, you do not put "convicted criminal" into edit summaries over and over. Stop that. Uncle G (talk) 09:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm intrigued that you don't see currency as an issue when the woman takes on the surname. Do you feel the type of relationship defines the length of time? AkaSylvia (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Right, the best reference for the Dame Shirley Porter connection is Dimoldenberg, Paul (2006). The Westminster Whistleblowers: Shirley Porter, Homes for Votes and Scandal in Britain's Rottenest Borough. Politico's. ISBN 978-1-84275-179-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) pages 126, 134, 143 or 171. I've not looked at offline sources before so I'm not sure how to proceed. Should relevant quotes be added to clarify or the text entered somewhere for easy reference? Note the same book is also used as a source on the main entry for Shirley Porter. AkaSylvia (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • You don't need to copy the text of a book wholesale in order to cite it. But be aware of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's concern that telling only a very small part of the story is misleading. Hosken 2006, p. 346 makes the point that Stanford's actions were not in fact aimed at Shirley Porter. There's a more detailed and complex connection between two paragraphs in the article than the mere three sentences that the three of you have been edit warring over for nine months makes out.

    It's very disappointing that even though one of the three parties in this edit war knew in October 2011 that working on the wording was the answer, neither xe nor any of the other two of you did anything like that at all for all of those months, and that the article has had effectively zero improvement made to it by any of you in that entire period. None of you has used anything but the "undo" tool, with one actual content-changing edit as an exception, for a span of 53 page revisions. Are none of you writers?

    Uncle G (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

    • Ouch! OK, what I'd like to do is update with two full name sources for the family material and propose a paragraph or two of text (referring to both Hosken and Dimoldenberg) to deal with the other text which is currently removed. I think it should be straight-forward to make it clear that the discovery of Shirley Porter's money was coincidental to Stanford's intent.AkaSylvia (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
    • What's inexplicably omitted here is that this whole fracas developed because I actually improved the article, adding citations, removing some unsourced content, adding tags regarding sourcing, etc [[5], only to be hounded ad nauseam by Stanford and his girlfriend. It would be nice to see consistent support for routine BLP enforcement and more objection to self-promotion, but those don't seem to be administrator priorities. . . . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
      • That's because what you did isn't anything like BLP enforcement. You edit warred for nine months, partly over something that you began with that diff, where you removed one of the three sentences that you've been edit warring over. (You didn't add citations. That's one of several false claims that you are making about your "improvement" to the article. They were already there, added by JamesGardiner (talk · contribs) and Foxywizard (talk · contribs) years before you ever touched the article. You just moved them. The only things that you actually added were an "External links" section heading and a {{reflist}}, which is not exactly hard work at article improvement.) You made exactly one talk page comment, some six months in to your edit war, where you misidentified this Daily Telegraph obituary as a "self-published source". And when one of the other editors called you a "vandal", you responded in kind and started calling the other editor a "criminal". That wasn't a summary of an edit; that was blatant violation of the Project:No personal attacks policy to make your edit war personal and a violation of the Project:Biographies of living persons policy to make negative biographical statements in edit summaries rather than use them to summarize edits.

        Ironically, it is this edit by the article subject that actually does the things that you erroneously describe yourself as having done: adding (albeit poorly) a Daily Telegraph source, attempting to replace The Register, a potentially unreliable source, with a better source (silicon.com, which is now TechRepublic), and — most ironically given your most misguided "This is whitewashing!" self-justification that comes a day (actually more like 300 days) late and a dollar short — explaining in more detail the criminal offence, including the law that was applied. That was the other thing that you then edit warred over for nine months, even though the second editor attempted to engage in talk page discussion: a discussion that you made zero input to — yet another zero on your side of a nine month edit war.

        It took the imagination of the third editor, having the idea of posting here on this noticeboard, to stop you edit warring with the "undo" tool. It is also that third editor that has pointed to one of the three easily found books that connect Shirley Porter to Cliff Stanford and document events in a lot more detail — detail that, if you actually were interested in article improvement as you claim but your actions of nine months belie, you'd have been adding to the article nine months ago. But, too, there's a big zero on the balance sheet in your search for relevant sources and attempts at making wording improvements to the text supplied by a novice editor, even the ones that that editor suggested on the talk page some five months into your edit war.

        A nine months edit war that you both started and continued with zero discussion, and yes — per the 53-revision diff given above as well as the diff that you've just pointed to where you claim, as your own, work that other editors did years before — zero improvement by you, zero attempts to correctly identify a poorly cited source, zero attempts to find more sources yourself and put the verifiability policy into actual action, zero attempts to collaboratively improve poorly written wording that a second editor even asked you to improve, as well as abuse of edit summaries contrary to the very policy that you claim to be enforcing, is appalling behaviour from a Wikipedia editor with tens of thousands of edits. Shame on you! You're being shown up, as less of a writer, less able to engage in talk page discussion, less able to look for good sources on a subject, and more of an edit warrior, by the single-purpose accounts (which actually have edits to other articles) with less than a hundred edits (even just the one in one case).

        Uncle G (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• I was asked to give an opinion, and I am happy to do so. After looking over the discussion and the diffs, it is clear to me that Uncle G's thorough account of the history is accurate, and I can only subscribe to his admonition of a seasoned editor who must have had this article on his watchlist for a long time and never got further in their efforts than "rv as before", as the history shows. That's not defending our BLP policy or guarding against COI; it's obstinate and unhelpful. COI editors shouldn't be given leave to write their own articles--but this seems to be reverting for its own sake. Does that mean that the others are entirely without fault? No--but, in their defense, they are novices, and they tried discussing them.

  Any seasoned editor who knows how to write and has seen the effects of writing knows that the proper way to improve an article is to improve it, and that clearly has not been done. As for the edit summaries, they are obviously out of line, both morally and according to our BLP policy, and really, I'm shocked that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz saw fit to use that terminology. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Cassie Scerbo

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

The text of the Personal Life section reads, simply: "Cassie Scerbo is dating Cody Longo, but they broke up when she found out he cheated with his co-star Brittany Underwood. Unfortunely they will never get back together because Cody Longo is now dating Brittany Underwood.But I personally think Cody is better with Brittany.:)<3"

It contains a personal opinion and references no source material and thus, to my understanding, violates policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.108.130.11 (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know - this has been fixed by Uncle G. In most situations like this, you can Edit the page directly to remove the inappropriate unsourced material. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Edits by User:The Shadow Treasurer

Moved to WP:AN/I. -- Hoary (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Subject's email address in BLP

I recently had this discussion here:

I emailed my local MP's constituency office on another matter, but also asked if they'd like to have his email address in his article and they said they would. Do we do that? I can't find an email parameter in his infobox. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's not a great idea. It's sufficient that we link to their websites, which will enable people to contact them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I added his parliament webpage, which has his email address. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Could I have a second opinion on this, please? Does anyone else have a problem with me putting his email address on my local MP's webpage? If so, could you tell me what the problem is, please? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In this particular instance, as you have described it, I really don't see a problem. The issue would be that as a matter of general principal, we don't want to encourage editors to dig up email addresses that are potentially private, and add them to BLP articles. Adding non-public emails would be a clear BLP violation. On the other hand, websites are almost universally intended to be public, so it is much easier to adopt a standard of having the link to the webpage and letting anyone looking for contact info find it there if the subject has made it public. Monty₈₄₅ 17:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:RECENT is relevant I think. Would you put Steve Jobs' email address in his article? Would you expect to find it in Britannica? Why not? Formerip (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia foundation members have their emails on their user pages so I don't see why other BLPs can't. I feel we should only add with permission of the BLP and remove when requested.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A BLP article isn't the same as a user page. I don't have a big objection, but I do think it should be deliberated, and Monty's comment demonstrates the sort of issue that might turn up. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Dru of Id has given me a very clear explanation on my talk page. Thanks everybody. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think email addresses need to be in Wikipedia articles. The email addresses for a particular representative's office can change as staff or officeholders change, and if you already have a link to the person's website in the article, if someone really needs to contact the representative, the reader can just go there. Personally, I think initial communications with a rep should be by telephone or postal mail first anyway, with so much email spam, why risk an important concern by sending it into the black hole of email? Wikipedia foundation members aren't elected representatives, and the concerns of a government rep are an order of magnitude more important than the concerns of a Wikipedia board member. As FormerIP says, WP:RECENT is definitely applicable, and things such as telephone numbers or email addresses just seem irrelevant to an encyclopedia article. We aren't supposed to be a phone directory. -- Avanu (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Avanu 110%. That means I could backtrack 10% and still be fully-behind their comment. GiantSnowman 17:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Brotherhood of the Strong

This article is up at AfD right now, but there are numerous police officers named by name and title implicated in illegal activities that the references simply don't mention. <ref name=TRIBUNE>{{Cite web|url=http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=119066947686494500|title=Jailhouse knocks|publisher=Portland Tribune}}</ref> links back to the front page of the site, and <ref name=SPLC>{{Cite url|url=http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2000/fall/behind-the-wire?page=0,1|title=Allegations of Racist Guards are Plaguing the Corrections Industry|publisher=Southern Poverty Law Center}}</ref> mentions no names. <ref name==PPW>{{Cite url|url=http://www.portlandcopwatch.org/PPR22/brotherhood.HTML|title=Deaths and Beatings in the County Jail: Tattooed Gang Roves Hallways|publisher=Portland Cop Watch}}</ref> is not a reliable reference. I think this page should be blanked or taken down immediately without regard to the discussion at AfD. Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Kumar Ketkar

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

Kumar Ketkar Hello again, this stub is uncited and does not seem to have a neutral point of view. And an IP keeps editing its own opinions of the matter into the article space. Thanks. LlamaDude78 (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I found the puffery and unsourced statements problematic and generally contentious; the IP's comments, though misguided, are adequate to indicate a challenge to the content in question. A handful of other edit summaries similarly indicate the material was challenged. So I stubbed it and left a tag, along with a note containing a findsources link on the talk page. JFHJr (㊟) 19:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I don't understand this at all. Of course the stub was awful, but did no one think to actually look for sources and, ahem, find some (since that's easy)? The article was even PRODded--for the second time, and the first time around, the BLPPROD tag was placed even though this reference was from a reliable source and clearly established at least some notability. The PROD was removed by by Phil Bridger, for all the right reasons. Anyone of a half dozen or so editors could have reverted to this version--and improved it. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Angela Maria Tellez-Giron y Duque de Estrada, Duchess of Gandia

This name was just added to our article on the House of Borgia as the current head of the House, although the House is supposedly extinct. I've told the editor about the problem, but now find her name at a new article, Grandes de España (Current) which is dubious, and at Dukes of Uceda although that doesn't call her the head of the House of Borgia, but does make unsourced BLP claims about her and the supposed current Duke. And again at Benavente, Zamora. Dougweller (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot find her name at Grandes de Espana. If this list is accurate, and it may be, then she is not genuine. Dougweller (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ross Rowland

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

Southern Railway of Vancouver Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An unsigned user keeps restoring a lengthy, unsourced paragraph that violates WP:BLP. I've deleted the paragraph several times, but he keeps restoring it. I might suggest that the IP numbers that he uses (there've been at least two) be blocked from editing this article.

He also repeatedly restores a similar paragraph in Southern Railway of Vancouver Island.

n2xjk (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've reverted (as unsourced), but I suspect that won't be the end of it. You might need to take it to WP:3RRN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• There's been nothing but editorialization and vandalism from those IP addresses, which all geolocate together and to the places that the vandalism is related to, for four years. Witness this edit and this edit, for example. I've revoked their editing privileges indefinitely. (They, in particular the IP address apparently assigned to a business local to the area, seem to be stable assignments. There are a few more domestic and cellular telephone IP addresses from 2008 and 2009 that were clearly the same person that I've left unblocked.) Uncle G (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Forbes blog as a RS

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

While removing a blog source from this BLP, I was looking for other sources which might be used as a source for similar information (which is critical of this BLP). This blog mentions the subject of the BLP, but I'm not sure of the editorial control of Forbes blogs, per WP:BLPSPS. Further input on the whether this blog can be used would be helpful. Yobol (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• What basis is there for doubting that this one meets WP:NEWSBLOG? You say you're not sure -- but why is there doubt? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't edit BLPs often and was just trying to be sure before adding information that is particularly critical of the BLP, as this a gray area to me. I have no particular reason to doubt that it can be used, especially if attributed to the author, but wanted to make sure. Yobol (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
    • You saw that Steven Salzberg was citing the very same writing by Dr David H. Gorski, didn't you? Uncle G (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, and normally I'd say that Gorski's blog would be a RS for topics on fringe medicine, however it looks like it might fail the more stringent WP:BLPSPS. That Salzberg published it on a more mainstream news website may make such criticism allowable, but I wasn't sure which is why I'm asking here. Yobol (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ed Miliband

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

The BLP is a WP:GA - and has been altered to describe him as a Non observant Jew - without discussion or any additional reliable citations - Youreallycan 22:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Diff in question. There's no meaningful difference between "not religious" and "non-observant". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it common for reliable sources to describe Ed Miliband as a non observant Jew? - Youreallycan 22:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

If they describe him as non-religious, then non-observant is a perfectly acceptable paraphrase. I don't think it's better, but I also don't think it's worse, or problematic in the slightest. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

YRC has a valid point - the wording should precisely reflect reliable sources here, especially considering the background of the BLP on this noticeboard in the past. Collect (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute, we're supposed to paraphrase and use our own words. Is there some connotative difference between non-observant and non-religious? From an outside perspective, I could see an argument made that "non observant" is more NPOV than "non religious" because because the latter might imply that he is somehow opposed to the religion, while the former simply states that he chooses not to observe the religious practices. Ditch ∝ 02:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No, there's no difference. What that means is that it's okay that the change was reverted. But it also means that there was no reason to bring it to BLPN in the first place. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Above: There's no meaningful difference between "not religious" and "non-observant". Oh really? To me, the former encompasses atheism (although it doesn't imply it), whereas the latter suggests that the person skips the rituals often associated with his beliefs. -- Hoary (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this assertion rooted in knowledge about Judaism, or is it supposition based on what the words suggest to you? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it may be rooted in knowledge of the English language. Formerip (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, indeed -- but since that evidently isn't sufficient to decide what the best expression is in this context I was also curious regarding knowledge about Judaism. But I'm not sure there's a live issue at this point about how to edit the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The disputed addition has been removed and not replaced so no there is no, as you call it, "live issue" - Your assertion that you dispute the rejection of the the desired alteration is somehow "rooted in knowledge about Judaism" - I return to my original rejection of your POV - Is it common for reliable sources to describe Ed Miliband as a non observant Jew? - - no its not - its also clearly not as User:Nomo claims, a perfectly acceptable paraphrase and its important to focus on these POV desired additions and clarify them as examples for the wider project - Youreallycan 20:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan—in my opinion, "nonobservant" and "nonreligious" mean the same thing—in relation to Jews. These are locutions that are both used. Hoary does not seem to be considering these terms in relation to Jews. Nomoskedasticity is making a valid point when he asks Hoary if his/her assertion is "rooted in knowledge about Judaism". Hoary makes reference in his post to "beliefs" but "beliefs" are not what make a Jew. You will even find in our Who is a Jew? article no suggestion that a Jew is a person who holds a particular belief. The 4 sources in our Ed Miliband article relating to him being Jewish do not use either of the two terms considered above. We have this source, this source, this source, and this source. The two considered terms, or variants on them—"not religious" and "non-observant"—are not found in the sources relating to Jewishness, in our Ed Miliband article. I think these terms all mean the same thing. Again—we are speaking about these terms in relation to Jews. Halacha is what is being referred to. All of these terms (including the variants) are conveying that the Jewish person described by these terms is not observant of halacha. If you feel these terms mean or imply different things can you please describe those distinctions? Bus stop (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Article format

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

This user and others may need help with section titles, order, and format etc. I am not familiar with the policies/guidelines. There are samples on the talk page if someone wants to help out a little? No panic though. No need to discuss here either I don't think.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

See WP:LAYOUT and WP:MOSBIO.--ukexpat (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Joe Francis

A brief point about the Joe Francis page:

1. Under the "Charges in Florida" section, the first paragraph deals with 71 charges that either the court or the prosecution dismissed for lack of evidence, so how it is relevant at all to mention completely baseless and unfounded allegations such as "racketeering, drug trafficking, and child pornography"? This whole first paragraph should be removed with the exception, maybe, of the final sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaftergo (talk • contribs) 04:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Trimmed it a little. The talk page should be the next step if reverted.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. A couple of other points:

2. Under the "Civil" section, the second line reads: "In 2008, four women sued Francis' company in Florida for filming them while underage, with one girl saying she had been 13 when filmed." If the matter was resolved with ZERO damages being awarded to the Plaintiffs, highlighting the fact one girl *alleged* she was 13 when filmed, is absolutely not relevant, and is far more prejudicial than biographical. Can we just say: "In 2008, four women sued Francis' company in Florida for filming them while underage." ?

3. The "Federal Tax Problems" section is far too long and detailed. Again, whatever the charges/allegations were isn't really relevant, nor is Francis' attorney's opinions about them. What *might* be relevant is what actually resulted in the matter, which apparently is that "In September 2009, Francis pleaded guilty to filing false tax returns and bribing Nevada jail workers. The plea agreement reportedly requires him to pay $250,000 in restitution. He received credit for the time he served in jail, and would be subject to one year of supervised release.[22]" Can we reduce this "section" to only this sentence? Honestly, the rest of it is poorly written, not supported by the facts/evidence, and unfairly prejudicial/not biographical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.183.7 (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hooman Majd

Hooman Majd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A couple of editors are trying to insert right-wing/neo-con libelous statements against a notable Iranian-American scholar, essentially calling him an agent of the Iranian regime, into the lead of his article.[6][7] Hooman Majd is an independent mainstream commentator and a US citizen, who regularly appears on ABC, CNN and NBC news as an expert on Iran.[8] The lead is no place for libelous statements/subjective opinions about the subject, and a clear violation of WP:BLP. This is like putting Michele Bachmann's accusations against Huma Abedin, into the lead of her article as a fact. I am hoping a few more people would keep an eye on this article. As a last resort, I may have to notify the subject of this article, to file a complaint with Wikipedia office. Kurdo777 (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A couple of editors have been trying to insert what appears to be libelous statements from a right-wing/neo-con editorial against a notable Iranian-American scholar, essentially calling him an agent of the Iranian regime, into the lead of his article Hooman Majd.[9][10] These are very serious accusations. Hooman Majd is an independent mainstream commentator and a US citizen, who regularly appears on ABC, CNN and NBC news as an expert on Iran.[11] This is like putting Michele Bachmann's accusations against Huma Abedin, into the lead of her article as a fact. Such material, which is basically subjective gossip/opinion as oppose to an objective fact, accusing a living person of being an agent of another government, does not belong in a living person's article, let alone the lead, even if they're sourced. I can find a sourced derogatory statements about many public officials in editorials by their opponents, it doesn't mean that I can go and dump it into the lead of their Wikipedia article. Now I'm puzzled as to what can be done about this. I tried to remove the libelous material, but I was reverted three times. I wanted to notify the subject of this article, to file a complaint with Wikipedia office, but I was given a warning for legal threats, which I believe is baseless, as it's the right of the subject to know what is being said about him, on his Wikipedia article, which might have real-life consequences for him. I was hoping for input from uninvolved administrators. What's the best course of action to take here? Can the subject be notified or not? Can an administrator intervene here to remove the possibly libelous material? Kurdo777 (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Try to avoid using words like libelous for a start. But if you want quick action on a BLP issue, best place to take it is the BLP noticeboard. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I notice that the material is sourced to something called the National Post. This appears to be a more or less right-wing newspaper (A), but one devoted to the notion that Israel is Good and Iran is Bad (B). (A) may be tolerable but (B) should set off warning bells. The article says, inter alia:

The British Observer newspaper has described Majd as a “high profile explainer of the Iranian regime” who “honed his polemical skills by defending the nascent Islamic Republic to Iranian emigres at Speakers’ Corner in London.”

and sources this to the National Post. This is odd, in that in principle and usually in practice all material from the (London) Observer is available at guardian.co.uk, a fact that is (or should be) well known to literate contributors to Wikipedia.

It turns out that the quotes are real, from this Observer review of a book by Hooman Majd. Of course the Observer said no such thing; instead, Roland Elliott Brown said it in the Observer. (Interestingly, Brown turns out to have also contributed to the National Post. Actually he pops up in various places not usually thought of as lefty hotbeds, e.g. here.) But they've been cherry-picked from the start of a paragraph, which concludes that Majd is a sometimes sympathetic communicator of the regime's positions, and an enthusiast only for its most loyal oppositionists. This same article continues to say such things as that Majd concedes that Iran's 2009 "election" fielded only regime-vetted candidates and was stolen, and that the reigning administration is "increasingly fascistic". There's no mention of this kind of thing in the resulting Wikipedia article, which does look highly dubious. -- Hoary (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Stuff in the green box moved here from WP:AN/I. -- Hoary (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Well thats a bit more troubling as far as cherry-picking sources go, but at least there is a solid source to build from now. Although now I am irritated why the problematic bit in the lead didnt show up when I did a search. (All I got were national post results) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm one of the alleged inserters of "right-wing/neo-con libelous statements against a notable Iranian-American scholar." I did take the quote “high profile explainer of the Iranian regime” from the National Post (the 7th biggest English-language newspaper in Canada and 2nd 4th biggest in Toronto. It's not exactly Newmax or Fox News and (on further examination, National Post is pretty ideological) if others feel the need I'm happy to add something like "according to the pro-Israeli National Post newspaper." I would have searched for the quote in the original source but I'm at work and time was short. I'm more than happy to change the wording in the article to "Roland Elliott Brown, writing in the Observer, has called Majd `a high-profile explainer of the Iranian regime to American audiences` and `a sometimes sympathetic communicator of the regime's positions, and an enthusiast only for its most loyal oppositionists`", or something shorter.

Anyway I think there is a very big difference between saying `He has been described as a “sometimes sympathetic communicator” of the Iranian government's positions` (my wording), and "essentially calling him an agent of the Iranian regime" (as Kurdo's accuses me).

(PS, anyone puzzled by why this issue wasn't settle in a civil talk page back-and-forth might want to look at the long (many years) and tortuous attempt by myself and some others to fix (what we feel is) an appallingly bad article on the 1953 Iranian coup d'état that Kurdo has long ferociously defended.) --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

First thing to catch my eye here is that I'm being attacked by Kurdo777 as an editor supposedly adding "right-wing/neo-con libelous statements" to an article. How laughable my friends would find that statement... I'm quite the liberal. What I was doing in the article was reinforcing the fact that the cited source was being interpreted correctly. I couldn't give a fig for Mr. Majd... I had never heard of him before coming to the article and reading the cited source. I have no horse in the race. My initial interest was the result of BoogaLouie's talk page being on my watchlist, and thus I saw a sharply worded warning from Kurdo777 to BoogaLouie, one which made me curious to see what the problem was. At any rate, I determined there was no violation of BLP because the source was not being misused. Binksternet (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Kristen Stewart, Rupert Sanders, Robert Pattinson

There's edit-warring on these articles regarding reports of one cheating with another on the third, so here's a place for the centralized discussion. The cited source is People (magazine), which includes an apology-quote from one regarding the incident. There are WP:RS concern about the source, and even if true, WP:UNDUE for a maybe-trivial bit of celeb gossip substantially based on paparazzi-like photos in Us Weekly (another WP:RS concern). DMacks (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I do think it is true since there are pictures to prove it and many serious sources have reported of it, too. These are just some of the articles.teammathi 10:25, 26 July 2012 (CET)

I read this article from the BBC about 6 hours ago, and it mentioned the existence of photographs; now it doesn't. GiantSnowman 18:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a source for further information on the direct subject, but Stern 2012 makes a good case for sensible editorial judgement. That's sensible editorial judgement by us, Wikipedia editors, as well as by everyone else. (It's amusing when one can just cite sources to make BLP Noticeboard arguments.) Uncle G (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Stern only wrote that Stewart shouldn't be the one getting all of the blame. Nobody here is blaming anyone. It is just a fact that an indiscretion happened and as long as it's written objective I think it should be in the article. teammathi 13:21, 27 July 2012 (CET)

"It is just a fact that an indiscretion happened" - No it isn't, it's a story printed in a gossip magazine with photos (very grainy difficult to see what's happening photos) - The fact that the same story was printed in several magazines makes it no more valid! Severniae (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN covers this extremely well I think, there is an accusation, and a notable scandal. The incident can be mentinoed, but it must not be stated that she objectively had an a affair, just that the story exists. Further, her public apology, the photographs etc push this far beyond mere rumor. Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he actually did.Gaijin42 (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, except that in this case, the public figure isn't denying the allegations, unlike the one in your example. Stewart owned up to it and issued a public apology for cheating. It would be wrong if the article stated "she had an affair" or something like that, because she didn't comment on that - but she DID confirm what the pictures depicted and apologized for the cheating portrayed in them, and that's strictly what her article and Pattinson's article refer to: Us Weekly released pictures of Stewart cheating on Pattinson with Sanders, Stewart in turn apologized for the cheating shown in those pictures. I really don't see why this is such a controversial issue. If Stewart had denied it or even just refused comment on it, I'd say it shouldn't even be mentioned in the articles because it would be nothing but gossip - but since she has directly admitted to it and made it a public issue by releasing a statement, it seems like a pretty clear-cut case.Starswept (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I ran across the Stewart article by accident and believe mention of the stories does not need to be on Wikipedia per WP:BLP. 1) The original source is apparently grainy photos in a gossip magazine. 2) It gets backed up by a claimed "apology" in another gossip magazine. Other media is citing the two gossip magazines looking very much like WP:BLPGOSSIP applies. FWIW, the Kristen Stewart article links to http://www.kristenstewart.com/ which I assume is her official web site. The bio on that site claims she's "currently dating actor Michael Angarano." That presumably is a case to remove the entire paragraph that covers rumors over her relationship with Pattinson much less that the tabloids are now claiming she's cheating on Pattinson. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

References

• Stern, Marlow (2012-07-12). "The Affair Witch Hunt: Leave Kristen Stewart Alone!". The Daily Beast. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Tyler Rix

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

Quite simply, the article makes a series of claims of which it doesn't reference.

Also, it describes him as a 'footballer'. Further in the article it mentions that he used to play football at school. That's not pro, nor semi-pro, nor is it equivalent to American college football. If playing for your school means you can be described as a 'footballer', then I am a footballer, and so are the majority of persons.

This article needs properly reviewing by a moderator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adshenshall (talk • contribs) 18:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Fixing content is everyone's responsibility here, including yours. Talk:Tyler Rix is currently empty. At the very least use it to record your concerns for reference by future editors. Uncle G (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Reuben Singh

This biography is an awful mess, outdated, full of irrelevant and poorly written information.

Quite an interesting subject - Reuben Singh is a controversial tycoon, who in the 1990s went into Guinness Book of records as youngest self-made millionaire (opened a chain of shops as a schoolboy), later turned out to be a fraud, went on to become bankrupt.

I believe it has excessive Trivia and is biased in positive and negative ways - check out the Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryanrobson1 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• It wasn't so bad. A bit of cleanup, a couple of tags--the rest is straightforward editorial improvement. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Douglas Youvan

Please look at Youvan's biography. There appears to be a concern that Image:Genetic Code Bias 2.svg somehow favors Intelligent Design or Creation. The same figure is in Wikipedia's Genetic Code article. While receiving millions of hits, it has drawn questions (without merit) to Youvan's notability. Such a banner at the top of a living person's biography will make a negative impression on a reader who might happen to be a reviewer, grants manager, potential donor to the Youvan Foundation, etc. and cause harm to Youvan's fundraising and income, which to date is approxiamtely $100M. The users / ediors responsible for the banner have limited knowledge of advanced biology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.133.196 (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Let's hope that at least those users understand Wikipedia. I will have a look. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Let's also hope that any potential reviewers, grant managers, or potential donors, have the reading comprehension to grasp that the banners are commenting on the article and not its subject. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• The tags are perfectly valid. Article has only a few secondary sources. That KAIROS was founded by him is established by this reference, and that they were awarded a bunch of money is verified by this reference. There is enough here to build an article on the company. But the rest, that's not much more than a bunch of articles that can't be used as references in a BLP, and I do not yet see evidence that the person is notable via WP:PROF, for instance. If the IP, which appears to be associated with the subject, wishes a better article, perhaps they should drop some reliable, secondary sources on the talk page. Also, don't use us for fundraising. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Kristen_Hall

The Boston Herald article linked to re: Hall's lawsuit settlement with Sugarland is no longer available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valvicus (talk • contribs) 07:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It's fixed now. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Two articles - any connection?

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

Michael R. Meyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These are two relatively low-visibility articles that have been getting some attention from an IP account. First, they are trying to add material to both articles that the two are married and some additional material about their family. Second, they are adding material about a 2010 guilty plea Seggerman made in 2010. For the moment, I have removed the family material as unsourced and the plea material from the Meyer article as coatracky.

However, I'm a little flummoxed by the guilty plea. The Seggerman who pled guilty is part of a very wealthy family. Interestingly, we have no article about the deceased patriarch, Harry Seggerman (maybe his only real notability was his wealth). More strangely, assuming our Seggerman and the tax evading Seggerman are the same individual, we have nothing about Seggerman's family history in her article. What I want to know is are they the same person? The Seggerman guilty plea is well-sourced (NYT), although arguably jarring and lacking in context in terms of the rest of our article, but if it's a different person, obviously it has to be removed.

As for the marriage, I've found one or two items that indicate that the two might be married, but they aren't good enough to cite to.

If anyone can untangle this, that would be great.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• It is interesting. There's an explosion of coverage on May 12 when the lawyer was arrested, then essentially nothing, before or after. While I certain suspect it's the same person, I don't feel comfortable making the link without more. The subject's website addresses only the video game charity/foundation. I'll do a book search in a bit to see if it reveals anything. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• I've done some research on this, too. There are more than one Suzanne Seggerman in the U.S.. The problem is that the court case report isn't specific enough to identify which one is involved there; the two 2001 obituaries of Harry Gurney Atha Seggerman that I've found don't specifically identify the daughter (or even agree with each other on her name); and the biographical material of this Suzanne Seggerman, in the article, doesn't give any indication of family background or origins prior to working at PBS. The dots simply cannot be connected whilst stickAing to our content policy to say that this Suzanne Seggerman is that Suzanne Seggerman, or that either is connected to this Michael Meyer.

  We are in need of someone outwith Wikipedia to write and publish a source connecting the dots, if indeed they are connectable.

  Uncle G (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for everyone's comments. FWIW, I had a conversation with an IP account who represented himself as a journalist and a friend of Seggerman and Meyer. He wanted to link to a marriage license to support the marriage. I rejected that based on WP:BLPPRIMARY. I was also unable to verify the license because it was on a website (reliable?) that you needed special access to. He also said that Seggerman is the same Seggerman and she is scheduled to be sentenced on October 23 in New York. I could verify that last part if I wished, but it wouldn't necessarily prove the two Seggermans are the same individual. The IP/journalist seemed like an intelligent, well-spoken individual, which was refreshing, but none of this is really good enough for Wikipedia. At the moment, the only questionable material is in the Seggerman article (the plea) - there is nothing in the Meyer article and nothing about the supposed marriage in the Seggerman article. I haven't removed the material, but I would favor doing so without better support. As a relevant aside, the material is not particularly useful in the article without more context.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23 that the assertion about her guilty plea should be removed from Suzanne Seggerman's article, since at present there is nothing but a coincidence of names to back this up. The statement (with no context) is not useful, as you say, and the formal lack of a reliable source calls for its exclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Siles Redd

Why is this in Wikipedia? Are we putting just everyone in here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marimajazz (talk • contribs) 16:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean Silas Redd? And, if so, what exactly don't you like about the article?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if Silas Redd meets WP:NCOLLATH but I don't think that the emphasis on an arrest for disorderly conduct (public urination) meets our BLP standards. What do other editors think? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Nicole Richie

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

Does the lead normally include legal/controversy? I have never edited the article and came across if from a wikilink. It may be WP:UNDUE as well. I didn't read the source and don't know how signifigant it is.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a judgment call. In this instance, I removed the 2003 arrest from the body (no indication she was ever tried, let alone convicted). I then decided that the material in the lead did not even fairly characterize the body and was poorly worded (too inflammatory), so I removed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't want to touch it as other editors may revert because I have no previous input. I will resolve this for now. If your edits are reverted I suppose the next step is the talk page there.

Resolved

--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Paloma Faith

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

Apologies if this is the wrong place, but I think something needs to be set in stone regarding Paloma Faith's birth year. It appears that she was born in 1981, but her birth year has been given as 1985 instead. Most sources say she is 26/27 (depending on how recent the article is, her birthday was last week), but so far there are no reliable sources to back up the fact she was born in 1981 and is 31. This issue has come up a few times on her article's talk page and the date in the article has also been changed a few times, but with no reliable source provided. I've come here for some advice on what to do. Do we add both years to the article, remove the year altogether (the day and month are correct) or something else entirely? - JuneGloom Talk 18:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It may end up like Sondra Locke with both years listed. See the long talk page discussions there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

In England and Wales Births, Marriages and Deaths are recorded by the General Register Office, the index to these is widely available to subscribers of various family history sites like Ancestry, Find My Past etc. It is also available for viewing free of charge in various locations in the UK - British Library and some major libraries I believe. The LDS also provide free access to some of these family history sites at their Family History Centres as do many libraries. Many users here have subscriptions to allow them to view these public records which are copies of the UK official record. But there is regularly on Wikipedia an attitude that if something is not available free of charge online then it cannot be used as a reference, this rules out quoting any book in the British Library, any document in The National Archives and many other sources which is all rather ridiculous. jmb (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks a source must be available for free on-line can be directed to WP:SOURCEACCESS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:BLPPRIMARY public records which include personal information such as date of birth should not be used as sources. Editors asserting that she was born in 1981 need to provide a reliable secondary source for their claim. January (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

However, BLPPRIMARY does not prevent primary sources being used in talkpage discussion to show that secondary sources are in error. Formerip (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if the birth register shows someone of the right name born in 1981, there is still the issue of identifying that person as the one the article is about. Even unusual-looking names can be shared by more than one person. This is the sort of problem that makes us cautious about using primary sources. If I understand the talk page, this person claims to be younger. If so, it is a BLP issue as well as a primary source issue. Without a "reliable secondary source" in support, I don't think it is permissible to rely on our own interpretation of a primary source to "prove" that someone is lying. Zero^talk 04:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

In this the subject has quite an unusual combination of names so it is very unlikely that anyone else has that particular combination of names and can be easily checked with a search from 1837 to 2006 online, usually the mother's maiden name is used to check that the right person has been found. I find it incredible that Wikipedia does not consider the official national record of births is sufficient but for example an autobiography backed up by a press release from a spin doctor (sorry, PR agent) would be accepted! I am fairly sure that the more authoritative Dictionary of National Biography accept corrections based on the General Register Office entry? jmb (talk) 08:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Defamation per se at science ref desk

IP User:70.179.170.114 has posted defamatory claims claims of criminality diff about a private person here Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Am_I_getting_ripped_off_by_a_claim_to_need_replacing_the_PCM_on_my_PT_Cruiser.3F I have editted out some of the information and referred it to ANI but on second thought believed a report here might be more appropriate--can the visibility of the criminal allegations be changed? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If this is about linking Dick Edwards, I had hoped it would bring me to a Disambiguation Page. Sorry that there was none. And no, I'm not giving any criminal allegations here (not intending to.) --70.179.170.114 (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Then show some good faith, rewrite and repost your question without any reference to or identification of third parties, and request here that the earlier comments be stricken. No one has a problem with your asking for advice about a car, so long as something at wikipedia can help you. μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, done and requested. --70.179.170.114 (talk) 03:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The edits have been hidden by User:NuclearWarfare an the ANI desk μηδείς (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Wim Crusio

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

The page for this subject was created in large part by the subject himself using two former editor pseudonyms, now banned, and is currently being actively managed by the subject using a third editor's handle, Guillaume2303. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.175.57.8 (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• What is the BLP violation or policy concern ? Please provide evidence to support the statements you have just made. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • A notability issue was brought up on the talk page. It may have looked trollish to an un-involved editor and was removed. I had made a statement but have no qualms about the removal of the section. If there is a notabilty issue it should be decided by a project in that field. It is very technical research that the BLP has done and is doing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
    • His image links to 7 wikipedias in other languages. All articles named for him. I don't know if this helps notability.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
      • It most definitely doesn't not. The existence of translations of this article has nothing to do with notability. Notability is in-depth coverage by sources from identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy that are independent of the subject. Uncle G (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Given past history on this article (which pre-dates your account and so you might not be aware of, but can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive660#User:Bondiveres/User:64.85.252.225/User:Sgaran, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wim E. Crusio, and several other places) I recommend taking such talk page comments with a large sackful of salt. The question could be raised by a good faith editor. Indeed, as you can see, it was once raised by the subject as well as by Hrafn. But it has a fairly long history of also being raised by bad faith ones. Uncle G (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• As with other bios of notable Wikipedia editors, this one is from time to time the target of vandalism and trolling. Together with some off-wiki harassment, this was the main reason that I requested a rename of my user account last year. Perhaps I should have gone for a complete clean start, so that no connection could be made between my WP and real-life identities, but generally the people that troll or harass off-wiki are not regular editors who know where to find the rename, so usually the rename is adequate protection. In any case, I would appreciate if someone here could have a look at the talk page edits made in the last few days, especially the reversal of the archiving. I think that archiving this sort of trolling drivel after 6 months is more than reasonable (in fact, I think that this stuff would have been removed from talk pages of bios of non-WP editors). So to respond to Sean.hoyland's question above: the BLP concern is the comments posted by the IP that started this thread. The concerns voiced by the IP above are COI concerns and could easily be addressed by a checkuser investigation. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Josh Lanyon

Josh Lanyon is a female not a male as it is listed on the Josh Lanyon page here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leavingonajetplane (talk • contribs) 22:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I took a quick look at two links. They both said 'He'.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Josh Lanyon's own website uses male pronouns to describe the author. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

BLP children

Do we list their names and birthdates in articles? If so, under what circumstances? Do they have to add to the notability type thing?--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

In general a first name and year of birth should be sufficient if reliably sourced and notable. The inclusion of family names is covered under WP:BLPNAME. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPNAME, we should generally avoid naming children at all, unless there are specific reasons why we should (and being sourced isn't a reason): "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject". "X has a son and a daughter" is generally sufficient - And no we should never give birthdates of children, per WP:BLPPRIVACY. Notability isn't inherited (as far as Wikipedia is concerned), and we should treat the children of the subjects of our articles with the same respect we do other non-notable individuals: more so, if they are minors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for wise responses. Would someone like to edit Nicole_Richie#Family_and_relationships to fit policy/guidelines?--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I edited to state that the couple has two children.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone added names and birth years again. I edited to 1 girl, 1 boy in the infobox. Should the family section in the body include the same?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

2012 Aurora shooting

Hello. Recently, I added a quote to the 2012 Aurora shooting article attributed to political scientist Robert Spitzer at the State University of New York at Cortland.[12] As you can see from his Wikipedia entry and his faculty page, Spitzer is considered an expert on gun issues in the United States.[13] The quote I added follows:

There was a law called the Federal Assault Weapons Ban [signed in 1994], but the law was written with an expiry date and Congress let it expire in 2004. That law banned possession of certain types of assault weapons, including the weapon James Holmes used in Aurora last week. The law banned possession of large-capacity bullet clips, so people could only purchase guns that could hold 10 bullets. But since the law expired in 2004, Holmes was able to use a weapon that held 100 bullets at a time. It’s like something out of a science fiction novel, frankly.[14]

The quote was quickly removed as a BLP violation by an editor, who used the summary explanation, "removed as per BLP, no conviction".[15] Is it a BLP violation to cite an acknowledged expert on this case? Is there a problem with Spitzer referring to Holmes in this way rather than as a suspect? If so, can the quote be altered in whole or in part, or paraphrased to preserve the content? Thanks in advance. Viriditas (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

According to political scientist Robert Spitzer, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban [signed in 1994], would have prevented the use of one of the weapons purportedly used in the Aurora shootings. That law also banned possession of large-capacity bullet clips, so the general public could only purchase guns that could hold 10 bullets. Since the law expired in 2004, weapons that hold 100 bullets at a time are now able to be legally used. - http://www.france24.com/en/20120723-usa-guns-supreme-court-barack-obama-mitt-romney-constitution-right-arms-james-holmes-colorado

Something like the wording above? -- Avanu (talk) 05:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed it because of the 'Holmes was able to use a weapon that held 100 bullets at a time.' sentence. I would recommend that all run far and fast from this issue or be dragged into the mud. Editors have been pushing to include gun debates in an article that involved guns. I think this is the 5th dispute forum that it has been brought to on this article alone. I just had a good laugh at an ANI about me moving the discussion to a proper forum. It belongs in a gun debate forum, not every article that has a gun in it. This forks the debate on how much text we should include about gun debates in articles. Like the 'ethno-tagger', 'tabloid-pusher' issues this is in dispute forums, talk pages, Jimbo's email, Obama's bathroom wall, etc, etc. Find a forum to reach consensus on it and stop dragging it all over articles and dispute forums.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you misreading this thread and confusing it with another discussion? This thread is about including facts about Colorado gun law and the weapons used in the shooting attributed to an expert on the subject. There is nothing here about a "gun debate" or a "forum". If you believe that this expert on gun law is wrong, then provide facts, otherwise, please stop trying to reframe this discussion. The cited material is relevant and topical and will be added back into the article in an appropriate manner. Again, this has nothing to do with a debate about guns. It is a simple recitation of the factual nature of federal and state law from the perspective of an expert on gun law. Per NPOV, significant views should be included and that's exactly what I'm going to do. Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I found the forum: Wikipedia:Gun debates in article space--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting multiple talk pages and noticeboard discussions. Citing facts about Colorado gun law and the weapons used in the shooting have nothing to do with a "gun debate". Viriditas (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell

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

There seems to be an ongoing dispute over whether to include an article written by the subject about race and other things and also a blog entry from the MMfA by an un named staff writer. This has nothing to do with RS and everything to do with undue weight and if the material is trivial. Could uninvolved eyes please chime in on the talk page where it is discussed in a few sections now. Thank you, --Mollskman (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked into this, and it turns out that we have both a primary source to confirm what Sowell said and a secondary source to indicate its notability. I do not see any potential for a BLP violation, but I'd rather err on the side of caution, so I'm leaving out that paragraph for now.

Please do look into this and make some sort of ruling, so that we can either restore the paragraph or reconsider what can be salvaged from it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You looked into this? You are the one arguing for inclusion! Please explain why you feel a blog written by an un-named staffer to be worthy of inclusion here.--Mollskman (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be good to be able to get a final idea as to the value and reliability of MMfA. We've had numerous discussions across a number of forums, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus in either direction. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

MMfA like Newsbusters reports on hundreds of items weekly, all of which are citical of libs or cons. There has to be some standard to determine weight, less articles become dumping grounds for every partisan beef that one side has against the other. A simple standard which can be easily applied is that an event must have weight established by mainstream sources before even considering the criticism from these hyper-partisan sources. Arzel (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Mollskman said up front that "This has nothing to do with RS and everything to do with undue weight and if the material is trivial" so any talk about the source being unreliable is just a distraction. I'd like to hear someone explain why they believe this is a BLP violation as opposed to a minor content dispute. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Do not assume that Mollskmman's issue is the only one. It is an issue of RS as well for many of us. Thargor Orlando (talk) 01:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Ethnically nepotistic football clubs

• Category:Ethnically nepotistic football clubs

Yup. Wikipedia really does have a Category:Ethnically nepotistic football clubs - though fortunately with only 4 'members'. Just how many policies does this appear to violate? I suspect the number of policies it doesn't violate is shorter. Anyway, it clearly violates WP:BLP for a start. Can someone with a strong stomach and experience of how one deletes categories please step in to remove it from our sight? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• - List of ethnically nepotistic football clubs - connected/uncited - Youreallycan 14:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I edit amost exclusively in soccerball - firstly I have no idea what the title means, but the subject matter is saying that a club in country X only fields players also from country X. It's unrefereced and non-notable - I'll PROD and CfD accordingly. GiantSnowman 14:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
    • soccerball, eh? I knew that there was the whole long editorial dispute over which "football" was football. I didn't realize that you'd gone to the extremes of making up your own names for the sports. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• It may or may not be a BLP violation. Calling it such might be a bit extreme. More importantly in this particular instance, it seems like Wikipedia editors making up their own idiotic names — "ethnically nepotistic" — for things that they don't know the actual names for, again. At least we have an article on the Bosman ruling. The actual name for these things is (pre-Bosman) "nationality restrictions", and (post-Bosman) "home-grown player rules"/"home-grown rules" (c.f. Special:Search/Home-grown player rule). A better categorization would be something like Category:Association football teams with home-grown player rules; although these rules appear to be at national association or confederation rather than at team level, and so a yet better categorization still wouldn't be of teams, albeit that it wouldn't be a very useful category and would be better done in explanatory prose in one of those redlinked articles. Uncle G (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, apart from anything else, it is making unsourced assertions about the ethnicity of team members - which is a WP:BLP violation. And asserting that anyone has benefited from 'nepotism' with no source is also a BLP violation. Actually, per WP:BLP I could have simply deleted the lot: "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"... - need I go on? I raised it here, rather than the multiple other places that could have also dealt with it because it seemed the simplest way to handle it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment:. When I mentioned creating Wikipedia:Gun debates in article space I also mentioned we may need an Ethnicity: Categories and content type guideline. We may also need a sexual orientaion and religon one. They also may be combined a bit. There was discussion on the template talk page but that may be the wrong forum to discuss a new guideline or policy. These issues can then be discussed on the guideline talk pages and instead of forums all over WMF. It is even bleeding over to commons and meta that I noticed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

"we may need an Ethnicity: Categories and content type guideline". Like WP:BLPCAT you mean? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. A section in BLP may be too small to have a forum for it on its own talk page as well as ethnicity covers dead persons, teams like above, etc, etc. I also emptied the Ethnically nepotistic football clubs category. Someone may wish to MfD it. I don't have the time, nor do I care.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I get some BLPN eyes at ANI?

Could I ask for some BLP experts to look at the BLP issue that the LP posted to ANI[16]? I'm open to the possibility that my comment might need rewording, and am trying to work out a way to make my point without BLP vios. However, the LP and others are using it as an excuse to delete content from my RFC/U response[17][18]. The text that the LP objects to has been pasted into ANI twice, once by the LP. The alternative proposal is down here[19].BitterGrey (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you find solid proof or simply retract it until such time as you have proof? Personal attacks without substance are nothing but personal attacks. In addition, being financially rewarded does not immediately create a conflict of interest for every edit in Wikipedia, and also does not mean that even COI edits are bad in themselves. The standard is pretty clear, does an edit improve the encyclopedia or does it fail to improve it? You felt that slander was a quicker route to getting your way in an argument rather than a solid and professional debate. Take it back, or back it up with solid evidence. -- Avanu (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)