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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:46, 7 January 2014

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.

Robert M. Place

This IP seems to have removed the material in question from the article about black magic, but may have removed a bit too much. Mr. Place may not be a historical figure, but that does not preclude him from being a reliable source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is sourcing issue, not a BLP issue. Mangoe (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, nothing to do with BLP policy. Place is used as a reference (I added the info from memory) and the content is not promotional in any way. Place is considered a reliable source and is used as a reference in other texts subsequently used as references here. IP seems to misunderstand how Place's work is being referenced as a reliable source in this context. I've reverted to a pre-removal version. Stalwart111 10:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Gunderson

This article Ryan Gunderson appears to be about a person who is not notable and the article contains no references. I added a courtesy 10 day schedule for deletion which was removed by user Dolovis. I believe this article has existed in article space far too long without following the rules of a BLP and should be deleted from article space. Scottsadventure (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just nominate it for WP:AFD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thanks. Is it appropriate to comment on a user pattern on this noticeboard, concerning multiple non referenced BLP's? If not, how is a matter resolved where there appears to be a plethora of BLP articles edited by a single user which are not notable and are all connected to a similar subject matter? A pattern that could be viewed as consistent with that of perhaps a paid editor. Scottsadventure (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Ryan Gunderson was created back in 2007 by Dominant One, who doesn't appear to have contributed since April, 2008 and never started another page in the main article space. So it is difficult to identify the possible BLP pages from your post. Is there another editor that you are referring to? If you don't want to identify this editor, can you identify these other out-of-policy pages? Thanks --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As'ad AbuKhalil

Could we get some experienced BLP eyes on this article to examine the 2 edits by 79.177.199.82 ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The defamatory material has been repeatedly re-added. This article may be of help in understanding the background. RolandR (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuel_Sifuentes

Emanuel Sifuentes

This article seems to be a copy of a lot of the material from the Billy Collins article. For example Emanuel Sifuentes is not a distinguished professor at Lehman College and has not bee Poet Laureate of the United States. Other information that I have no way of knowing about (place of birth) matches the information on the Collins page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcsmom (talk • contribs) 15:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stubified to remove all copied material and Prodded. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. in article name?

Should the BLP article be Dr Raghuram or his name in the article, P. Raghuram? I would make it the latter. Advice?--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what is used more commonly in reliable sources? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed already and there is a policy regarding it. The person's name is correct for the title. Their achievements or titles should be in the body of the article including earned status such as being a "doctor" whether its medical or a PhD or honorary. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia generally uses the normal name - and mentions titles in the body of the article. Exceptions are made for some inherited titles, etc., delineated in the MOS, some of which are given following the name of the person in the title of the article. Wikipedia, as being edited by a herd of cats, is not absolutely consistent in any of this. Collect (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See ~~WP:HONORIFIC~~WP:CREDENTIAL. We don't put "Dr." in front of a person's name, except in very narrow circumstances. Roccodrift (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the user is notable under the name that includes the title (e.g., Dr. Spock for the famous American pediatrician Benjamin Spock) a redirect can be created, but the article should be titled using their disambiguated person name. Dwpaul ^Talk 23:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Wilkos

The article states that Steve served in the Marine Corps from 1982-1989. Earlier in the article it states he saw action in the Korean War. This cannot be correct. The Korean War was fought before Steve was born.

Also, the artcle states that Steve is a world class skater and is under contract with Xtreme Skating? This is hard to believe and has not been verified... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.241.222 (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That actually says his dad served in Korea. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I reverted the Xtreme Skating info, as it wasn't backed up by any refs. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reveille (dog)

Reveille (dog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'd be very grateful if someone with BLP experience (and maybe an interest in dogs, sport etc!) could please have a quick look at this article and its recent history. Accusations, possibly of criminal, or at least dubious behaviour, against named individuals have been made and removed. The article is currently a bit of a mess after many recent edits. My interest is (very) tangential and I don't know enough to fix it or watch it usefully. Can anyone help, please? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I see the removal of this is sourced to this, which is a dead link as far as I can tell. As such, it is unreferenced and can be removed uncontroversially. Even if it were live, judging from the URL it seems it's someone's recollection, so it would have to be worded as such rather than presented as fact. Like everything else, we have to say what the sources say. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for that. It looks like the article is being watched a bit more now and I think the BLP issues will be safer as a result. I shall shut up and drink tea for a bit. Cheers DBaK (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Paul Piques

This page has no real sources or true information. The 2 references on the page do not include any information at all about the person.

The Personal section, more importantly the last 3 sentences, have no basis for inclusion whatsoever and no sources.

This biography significantly exaggerates the persons past, but in reality his career is not verifiable or notable.

For these reasons, this biography should be deleted.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.42.51.27 (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is not the place to report issues with lack of notability, but nonetheless I've nominated it for deletion since he doesn't seem to meet either WP:NFOOTY or WP:BIO. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Robertson query

Is US Magazine a reliable source for personal details about this person, and oif so are the details presented complaint with WP:BLP? [1]. (Robertson married Marsha Kay Robertson while a student at Harding University in Arkansas when he was twenty years of age and she sixteen) The US Magazine article does not actually support the entire claim ... but a second source given is [2] which backs AFAICT essentially none of the claim ascribed to it. The claim appears to me to be OR and SYNTH and not actually using either of the two refs attached to it. Searches seem to indicate no definitive opinion on using US Magazine, but I am also concerned that the claim is not even supported by it :( Any input is welcome. Collect (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Yahoo source backs up the claim. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It covers part of it -- but does the Yahoo source meet WPLRS as it appears to be "celebrity filler"? The rest (name of university) is not found in the Yahoo source either. And we still do not know whether celebrity mags on general meet WP:RS here. Collect (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The information is readily sourced, but the larger question is whether it needs to be mentioned. It seems undue and POV-ish. Roccodrift (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason not to mention it as long as it's sourced. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given Phil's comments about marrying teenagers that have gone viral, it would seem logical to mention that he followed his own advice. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look, two nonsensical assertions in a row. No, mere availability in a source does not merit inclusion on its own. And no, Robertson's comments from the Sportsman Ministry video did not "go viral"; they made an appearance in the 24-hour news cycle as a continuation of the larger controversy, and now they are all but forgotten (except among those with an ax to grind who suddenly find themselves on the losing side of the dispute regarding his continued employment with A&E). Roccodrift (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ax-grinding? Losing side? Seems like talk for waging a battle rather than working with others. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to GLAAD and certain parties within the media, not Wikipedia editors. Although perhaps it is telling if you see yourself in those comments. That's your own call to make. Roccodrift (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing that up, it's much easier to see what's going on. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with RS is another matter - this seems to be very much a tabloid-dominated subject to begin with. Is there a concern that I'm missing? In most Southern states the age of consent is 16 in any case. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robertson's recent remarks about gay people and blacks during the Jim Crow laws era have had some repercussions including some of his past videotaped statements being unearthed. The latest one is where he encourages men to marry teenaged girls."New Duck Dynasty Bombshell: Phil Robertson Shares Controversial Views on Teen Marriage" As you point out the view is not unheard of, yet in light of his recent past remarks it paints a picture of sorts. Personally I think people forget that marriage has evolved greatly even in the past decade, and that women as property is still a standard seen around the world even if not considered an enlightened view. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail, which Collect considers a reliable source, supports the fact that Robertson married his wife when she was 16 ([3]). That should satisfy his concern about sourcing. Whether this fact belongs in the article is a question outside the scope of this noticeboard. MastCell ^Talk 00:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually -- it is reliable for lots of stuff -- but is not "best source" for any celebrity gossip material. I had thought my position was clear on that by now. As you doubtless noted I stated "there are no sufficiently reliable sources for every topic under the sun" in that discussion which you aver means far more than it does. Not even the NYT is a great source for celebrity gossip material. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Riiiight. Do you want me to find more instances where you've insisted categorically that the Daily Mail is a reliable source? MastCell ^Talk 00:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And note that I said "about as reliable as the other British papers" which remains true. There is no such thing as a perfect source -- and even the NYT is not good for "celebrity gossip." Now what precisely is your point here? Are you trying to discuss me or discuss whether US Magazine is a reliable source for celebrity gossip? Cheers Collect (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does "a good source for celebrity gossip" mean?

If we're talking about information attributable to the subject of the article, that's not what would normally be considered gossip. If we're misusing "gossip" to mean low-grade trash, then that's not really a sourcing issue, but one of weight. And I don't see how Wikipedia can have articles on stuff like Duck Dynasty without sourcing to low-grade trash. Formerip (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion in question is supported by sources that meet RS and there's no problem including it in the article, given Robertson's notability connected with related issues. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be two groups of sources: those that specifically say "16", and those which report the wedding ring gift and in the course of that give a current age and length of marriage which allow a calculation of an age of sixteen. Typically the most mainstream sources (e.g. ABC News) are in the latter group. One has to suspect that Ms. Robertson's age at marriage was not actually looked up. I'm reluctant to include this, even it be true, unless it escapes from the scandal-mongering tabloids and becomes a more general controversy. Mangoe (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
His age at the time seems to be extracted with original research, though her age does seem somewhat supported. Some conflicting details exist, however, as one source noted above says she was 15. I think it is better to stick with what is there presently where we don't mention age.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors seem quite intent on stressing that the wife was "only 15" at the time of marriage (not strongly sourced at all) (under the LA statutory minimum according to some of those editors). Is [4] violative of BLP? [5]? [6]? [7]? Presenting at least four attempts in the course of only two hours in a manner suggestive of edit war to place the contentious claim into a BLP. One editor's edit summary states completely of the norm in that era w/in the ozarks which I think might not comport with Wikipedia standards. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Bieber redux

Justin Bieber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The latest edit-war concerns allegations that Bieber was reported to Interpol, that he participated in a riot, his bodyguards "robbered" [sic] the film from the paparazzi (I thought everyone used digital cameras), he disrespected the Argentinian flag etc. The diff concerning the material is here: [8]. The question is: How much of all that are we supposed to dump into Bieber's bio? Any opinions are welcome. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wrongly wrote "robbered" instead of "stole" (which is the right word, of course). I'm not a native English speaker so I can commit mistakes. By the way, you don't need to reproduce words exactly as they were written just to remark a mistake. - Fma12 (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to report about the edit. The edit had the expression and I reported it as was written. If you are not sure how to phrase something, I would advise that before you add it into an article you should ask on the talkpage first to get help. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How much of that are we supposed to dump into Bieber's article? None, in my opinion, Dr.K.. What a pack of trivialities. That whole section called "Contoversies and legal issues" should be eliminated. He gave someone the finger. He showed up late to a concert. He tussled with paparazzi. His pet monkey got confiscated by customs agents. Some rapper sued him (not mentioned in the rapper's bio, and undecided by the courts). What a load of crap. Totally trivial gossip, every word of it. I have never listened all the way through three minutes of a Justin Bieber song, to the best of my knowledge. But this is ridiculous. Am I off base here? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all Cullen. I fully agree with you. There is also the part where a mayor called him a "Princess". In my opinion such stuff should not be included in a serious bio. And yes, I have only been able to make it through a few seconds of one of his songs. I gave up, right after that, listening to any other. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. K, I'm an old editor and always try to write properly; of course if I'm not sure how to phrase something, I'll request for advise, there are very kind persons here who glady help me with the grammar instead of teasing as you did. If you came here "only to report the edit", just put the edit without remarking my mistake ("sic") because it is not relevant for this debate. - Fma12 (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll request for advise, there are very kind persons here who glady help me with the grammar instead of teasing as you did. If you came here "only to report the edit", just put the edit without remarking my mistake ("sic") because it is not relevant for this debate. My reference to your phraseology was very relevant, and characterising my actions as "teasing" does not assume good faith, so leave the personal attacks. I put "robbered" to indicate that you are calling people robbers in a BLP, something which is extremely serious, not to "tease you". I also added " [sic]" to indicate that the phrasing was not mine but belonged to your edit so that editors were informed about what was being edited into the article. If you are about to accuse people of being "robbers" or "thieves", in a BLP, you need very strong sourcing and you should be very cautious as to the phrasing you are attempting. Accusing people of stealing or robbing something should not be done while you are unsure of the meaning of words. So I advise you again: Next time you add very controversial material into a BLP, like calling people criminals, make sure you know what you write or at least ask someone for help, ahead of time not after you added something very serious, for which you are not sure about, to the article. Second, you wrote that they "robbered the film". These were digital cameras, they don't have film. Are you sure this is correct? How can these people "steal" or "rob" something which does not exist? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About the subject of this discussion, some of the incidents were facts, not suppositions: p.e. sweeping the door with the Argentine flag; it was covered by reliable newspapers and agencies not only from Argentina (here, here -this link inlcudes to video so the incident was shoot and later reproduced on youtube and social networks- but international media (as seen here, amongst other sources). Due to this incident JB was sueded by local lawyers (this is also a fact, as told on this Spanish web). Nevertheless, user Moxy arbitrarily deleted the edit from the article, considering them "not relevants" as only argument, then alleging such absurd causes like "the links are not in Spanish", as if he was a sort of judge that decides what deserves to be included and what not.

To conclude, I think that if we don't want to have a large list of incidents involving JB in diffferent countries, the section "controversy" should be eliminated. I'm rarely involved in edit wars, but when I'm sure that my edits are constructive and reverted without a valid reason, my reply is to search for a consensus, just like in this case. - Fma12 (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would WP:NOTCENSORED come into play here? If the story is published in reliable sources then I feel it should be included we as an encyclopedia can not sugarcoat everything to make someone look like a saint either. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found some more official sources for things involving Justin that are in the article. (BBC) (BBC)<-- Graffiti done by Justin in Australia and Rio. This is CNN addressing the possible rumors though about things that have gone downhill in Bieber's life for neutrality. (CNN). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have to look at what is notable in the long term as his in the news everyday. Do we report everything he does like a tabloid paper? I think not lets look back over the past week below and here at the BBC. Simply not sure what he did a month ago (what is being inserted into the article) has any coverage now at all...why because its a daily thing as in everyday a new news story. Would we write about the daily mishaps of Elvis or MJ in this manner I think not...plus this is a living person. WP:NOTEVERYTHING - WP:PAPER - Moxy (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. WP:CENSORED does not come into play here. Rather WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM as well as WP:NOTNEWS. The legal problems section in Bieber's biography is like an open sore. It collects all kinds of trivia of very doubtful value and should be trimmed, not expanded. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100 percent the whole section is a problem. All we need to say is over the past 2 years hes been in the media spotlight for a variety of personal incidences -- Moxy (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that with a high profile celebrity, there will be lots of reliable sources covering some unimportant and unencyclopedic aspect of the person's life, especially if it sells papers. In general, articles, especially BLPs should not have "controversy" sections. In specific, the entire first paragraph of Controversy and legal issues should be removed as unencyclopedic fluff. The same probably goes for the rest of the section. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, the word "controversy" is being misused. Is there any dispute that he gave people the finger? Or that an unrelated paparrazo died, or his monkey was seized? If so, the article doesn't explain it. Does an alright job with the graffiti and Anne Frank bits. But anything not a legal issue or truly controversial (as opposed to scandalous or sensational) has no place here. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:01, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree. Thank you Moxy, AQFK, Hulk for your input. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really think think that his much documented (in many languages) insult to the Argentine flag needs to be in the article, as it tells us something about him (be it maturity/immaturity/experience/intelligence) I suspect had a foreign national toured America and trashed their rightly venerated flag, some editors here may fell differently. Giano 21:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the flag incident struck me as odd. At first glance it looks weird. He went to a country to perform for them and then he insulted their flag in front of such wide audience. Yet we don't know the context of the incident. Was he making a point about the perils of nationalism? Or the use of nationalist motifs during the Argentinian junta years? I don't know. But I find it very unusual to just trample on a flag for no reason. I don't think that one can rely on tabloid reports if one wants to find the deeper context of the incident. Perhaps there is no deeper context and that simply was a gratuitous act of insult. But still we need more sober sources than tabloids to actually report on it before it can be included, at least imo. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remember why I stopped reading this article and talk page. The fact is that Wikipedia is not really supposed to cover every single incident in anyone's life, including Bieber's. One can pick up a tabloid at the market if one wishes all this "stuff." Prune it to heck. Wikipedia is not a gossip sheet. Collect (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The incident with the Argentine flag was not just such trivial. Using the national symbols to sweep the floor is a big offense here in Argentina (and worlwide as well, I suppose). If other incidents are detailed in the article, why not to include this? Moreover, this issue was covered not only by the local media like Clarín, La Nación, El Nuevo Herald, Infobae but international media too (CNN, El Informador (Mexico), Rolling Stone, Daily Mail among others).

On the other hand, other celebrity like Diego Maradona has been involved in a lot of controversies during his entire life, but his article on the Wiki does not have any section refers to his behaviour and multiple incidents where he was involved. My POV is: if every incident referring to JB has to be discussed before including them in the article, let's quit the "controversy section" of the article. - Fma12 (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That one seems truly controversial to me. The sources make it clear there was one side (concertgoers) who thought it was disrespectful and another (Bieber and his reps) who didn't. It's also somewhat a legal issue, as "disgracing the flag" is a crime punishable by up to four years in prison. He doesn't necessarily have to be charged or convicted for it to be relevant enough. And the coverage makes it notable enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:01, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

I am not too concerned about including this incident. If you think the RS coverage is strong enough then it can/should be included. I still cannot believe that Bieber set out to deliberately insult his Argentine fans but that doesn't really matter. IMO it was a gesture gone wrong. Perhaps Bieber wanted to send a message to his beliebers that as a group they transcend national barriers and picked the most visible symbol of that and destroyed it, but then the whole thing turned into some type of Monty Pythonesque fiasco. But again, this is strictly my personal opinion and doesn't count. The rest of the stuff in the criticism section is another matter and imo it should be trimmed. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't anyone read Bieber's explanation? Try Rolling Stone. People throw stuff up onto the stage all the time and he pushes it off to the side of the stage so nobody trips and get hurt. He saw a bra and what he thought was a t-shirt on stage. Maybe it was a t-shirt with an Argentine flag on it. So he swept it to the side of the stage. And people freaked out. As for "four years" in jail for this, I thought we only mentioned legal matters like this when someone got convicted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People freaking out and two sides to stories is what controversy's all about. The legal issue thing is a little blurrier. In my mind, dropped charges, failed lawsuits, messy divorces, detained monkeys or any event pertaining to law is a legal issue. But something a bunch of non-law types (I hope my lawyer isn't a Belieber) think might have resembled a potential crime...maybe not. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:01, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen for your link to the Rolling Stone interview. It doesn't surprise me because as I said before it is hard to imagine someone gratuitously insulting the nationality of the fans he is trying so hard to entertain. But the way the whole incident went out of control through all these misunderstandings reminds me of a Monty Python skit. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heel (professional wrestling) might make it easier to imagine. Since adopted by many performers. Not saying Beiber's doing it intentionally, or has the stones to try this, but he is remarkably famous for being despised, and vice versa. Vicious, lucrative cycle. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:01, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

Leslie Cornfeld

An article about this lady existed in a fairly basic form from 2006 until the beginning of December 2013, when an SPA account and several SPA IPs began to expand it considerably, giving it a promotional tone and making it increasingly like a resume. Eventually that drew attention, it was nominated for deletion, and I closed a thinly-attended WP:Articles for deletion/Leslie Cornfeld as delete. The subject of the article then posted on my talk page in some distress at User talk:JohnCD#URGENT - Deletion Error. I replied on User talk:SHurowtiz explaining the background, said that I was not prepared to reverse my close of the AfD, that she should go to Deletion review, and would stand a better chance there with an improved article. I therefore restored the article to the Draft namespace at Draft:Leslie Cornfeld, reverted it to the last version before the COI expansion, and advised her to list on the article talk page any inaccuracies and any suggestions for additions.

The purpose of this note is to ask for some eyes on the draft article, and for volunteers to help in improving it for Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially defamatory statements @ Chris Kluwe

I'd like some editors experienced in BLP matters to have a look at Chris Kluwe. Kluwe is an NFL player who recently accused a former team of firing him for his activism in support of same-sex marriage. Kluwe authored a piece [9] carried by Deadspin (a part of Gawker) that makes some fairly ugly allegations against a former assistant coach (Mike Preifer), and even went so far as to say "If there's one thing I hope to achieve from sharing this story, it's to make sure that Mike Priefer never holds a coaching position again in the NFL, and ideally never coaches at any level." Apparently, Preifer has denied the accusation, which makes it "contentious".

My concern here is that Wikipedia is facilitating WP:LIBEL, and per that policy there doesn't seem to be an exemption created by attributing the statements to Kluwe. The key bit here is Kluwe's explicitly stated intent to damage Preifer's career. (Note that malicious intent is one of the elements of libel.) Thoughts? Roccodrift (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To centralize the discussion, please comment at the ongoing thread at Talk:Chris_Kluwe#Accusations against Minnesota Vikings.—Bagumba (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Norton

An ip editor claiming to be Norton has objected to a recent edit to that article: see Talk:James Norton#Edit to Education section. The contentious statement is currently not included in the article and I have tried to advise the editor as best I can. Can he take any further action to prevent what he sees as a misleading statement from appearing again? I have not yet discussed this with the other editor involved in the sequence of reverts, User talk:Zhu Haifeng. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commented on the article talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Gosh, as if anyone would take an encyclopedia that seriously. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Does the statement "A page with this title has previously been deleted" create a BLP problem?

I've been contacted offwiki by the representative of a living person in regard to a deleted BLP article. The article was as far as I can see deleted according to process (an AFD, followed by numerous speedy deletions over the years citing CSD G4, G11 and A7). The person is clearly not notable according to our criteria and there is no chance of an article on the person surviving for any length of time, nor is there any obvious redirect target for the article.

The problem is that our deleted BLP page is also the first result on Google when you type this person's name in, so when a user comes along who is not familiar with our processes and punches their name into Google, they get a page from us saying that the person is "not notable", "deleted in a deletion discussion", "advertising" and "promotion". Clearly not a good look for that person, particularly as they are still active in business. Is anyone here aware of any previous discussion on this topic? Ideally I'd say that the deletion log should not be shown to logged-out users when they go to a page that doesn't exist, but there may be reasons this would be difficult or unwise.

I've chosen not to identify the person in question so as to keep this discussion on a "generic" level and avoid causing the person any further embarrassment or distress. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I think it does expressly for the reasons you spell out. I looked at Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing but it doesn't look like the magic coding can be used in article space. Was it just recently deleted? Maybe it takes a few days to clear the cache? Otherwise you might get help at Wikipedia:Village pump/Technical. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

obviously not. what utter hogwash. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If your future boss were to Google your name and the very first hit is showing a promotion article , presumably by you, was deleted, I think there is a issue about doing harm to a living person. Sportfan5000 (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or an article created by someone else at the same location as your name (particularly an issue I suppose with people approaching the notability threshold, or those with common names). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I still wonder if it won't be resolved in a day or two when Google's caches clear out the now non-existent page? Sportfan5000 (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can Wikipedia arrange to have "non-existent pages" actually deleted from Google results? I suspect Google would cooperate as they have naught to gain from linking to empty pages ... Collect (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know there's a roundabout way of removing deletion summaries from deleted articles (perhaps at the oversight level?) which might be invoked, but if the page was recently deleted then it might be that Google still hasn't gotten wind of it. Now if it's not gone in a couple of days then they might want to contact Google and ask them to remove the result for the given search keyword(s). As to whether this is a BLP issue where we have responsibility, that's hard to tell. It depends on how harmful the deletion summaries are to the subject. In any case, I'd wait for it to go away from Google if possible. MediaWiki returns a 404 status to web browsers and indexers for deleted content, so that's how search engines know something should be removed from their cache. They just need to index it again. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A request that Google reindex a specific page or site can be submitted here.[10] Dwpaul ^Talk 18:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, deleted pages do not typically show up in Google search results. (I can attest to this for several reasons, once of which is that there have been several attempts to create a mainspace article about me, which were speedied, and I'd know if they were being indexed under my name.) It may just be that as suggested, this is a temporary issue that will disappear in a couple of days as the crawler does it work, in which case the situation may be unfortunate but unfixable. If it's a longer-term problem than that, perhaps caused by some change in how either Wikipedia or Google does its coding, then I regard it as a very serious problem, because notices of deleted pages should absolutely not become a part of anyone's search profile. It would be good to hear from Lankiveil if the page that was the original subject of this thread disappears from the results within the next couple of days. We also need to bear in mind, of course, that there are other search engines besides Google, and monitor that our no-indexed pages are not appearing on these either. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested that Google re-index the page (thanks User:Dwpaul!), I'll keep an eye on it and report how it goes. The article was originally created in 2008 and has been repeatedly recreated since then, none of the creations are obviously autobiographies. It was most recently deleted in December, and that's the version of the text that's showing up in the cache. Thanks everyone for the suggestions and feedback Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T61733

We should be serving up the deleted page notice as HTTP 404, much as we do the "no such user" notice. I've filed a bug for it. — Scott • talk 18:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angie Vu Ha

This appears to be a self-written (Auto-biography) of an non-famous, aspiring model. Sources are weak and not from external, reliable locations. Objectivity in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.195.251 (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Berlinski

Mr Berlinski does not appear listed on the 'Discovery Institute's page of 'Senior Fellows'. (nor could I find him listed anywhere on the Discovery Institute's website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.67.96 (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He showed right up in the cited source for me: http://www.discovery.org/csc/fellows.php. He's the second Senior Fellow listed. —C.Fred (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy defense

David Marks is an attorney that pioneered the Fantasy defense according to several sources which include CBS news. This defense was reported as "groundbreaking" by CBS in the trial of Patrick Naughton. SqueakBox (talk · contribs) now believes that including the attorney by name in the article on Fantasy Defense violates WP:BLP (he first claimed Marks had lack of notability on the talk page). I believe this is hogwash as the sources are strong and including him as the attorney who effectively brought this defense into the lexicon is highly relevant to the article about the legal strategy/tactic. It is similar to the article Telephone stating that it was first patented in 1876 by Alexander Graham Bell.

Discussion on the talk page has gone nowhere, the WP:BRD process has now degenerated into SqueakBox edit warring over it [11], [12], and Squeakbox has suggested bringing this issue here for additional comment. Toddst1 (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations made are sourced to a newspaper but are also quite controversial because the Fantasy Defense is also known as the pedophile defense that allegedly allows pedophiles to escape justice and which was architected by said attorney. Given this IMO we should only include the name of the lawyer if we think he is notable of an article here, otherwise given the controversial nature of this entry we should use discretion and not add the name. Given that hysteria does surround pedophilia issues at times we need to take BLP especially seriously with this issue of pedophiles allegedly being helped to escape justice. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate SqueakBox's sensitivity to BLP concerns in this highly sensitive area. However, in this instance, Mr. Marks's own website contains this media page linking to press coverage of the case involving the defense, which mitigates the concern that he would be harmed by being associated with it. (That being said, I am doubtful that the defense itself warrants an article, as opposed to a reference in a broader article.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we do need an article for this, it would be pretty much ideal to have one that actually includes an explanation of what the "fantasy defense" is. Formerip (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've added a better description of what the defense is and restored the name of the attorney along with an additional citation - the media list on Marks' web site. Toddst1 (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marv Newland

Marv Newland directed the experimental/animated short CMYK for the National Film Board of Canada in 2010.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.142.124.120 (talk) 02:06, January 5, 2014 --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what you want by making that statement here. If you have a source, you can simply add it directly to the article yourself by clicking the "edit" link directly above. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Urgo

User Paul Ivolgin repeatedly inserts contentious information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRU2956 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The material wasn't properly referenced, and accordingly shouldn't have been added. Having said that, a properly-sourced statement that Urgo had resigned would hardly be 'contentious' in of itself - provided it accurately reflected the sources. Looking at the article, there are further problems however. Little of it has proper online citations, and I've just had to remove a paragraph which was almost entirely copy-pasted from a Washington Post article [13] discussing Urgo's departure from St. Mary’s College, Maryland - such copy-pasting is a clear breach of copyright, and entirely contrary to Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should the name of Amanda Berry's daughter be mentioned in Ariel Castro kidnappings

Amanda Berry's daughter is also the biological daughter of Ariel Castro. She was kept in captivity (even though she was a minor and most probably didn't know anything) along with the other 3 victims and is thus a victim of the crime First of all there are reliable sources for her name. A few of them is this, this and this. Some editors disagree of including the name of Amanda Berry's in the article. The sister of Amanda Berry asked the court to remove her name from the public records. They think that therefore their names should not be included according to WP:BLPNAME since they think that they are objecting disapproval of mentioning her name. They also say that family members asked for her privacy by calling her Amanda's daughter. They also say that she is non-noticeable. Also they say that it is victimization of the victim (the daughter) and by not including her name we are following WP:AVOIDVICTIM. However according to the Wikipedia article of Public records are government related documents which can be viewed by the public. As such newspapers, news websites and Wikipedia do not come under public records. Also in this link it is clearly visible that they are asking for the media to leave the daughter alone. Not only that I think they are extremely wrong about that she is non-noticeable. Also I highly doubt how including her name will victimize her. Therefore, I think that including her name does not violate WP:BLPNAME and think that including her name is the best thing to do. I don't think that we are violating the privacy of the family in any way. Should her name be added to the article? KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radar and The Daily Mail are tabloids and not acceptable as reliable sources for information about living persons.

We are talking about a child victim of kidnapping here. There is vanishingly little encyclopedic value in including her name, and given the expressed wishes of her family, I am in full support of keeping her name out of the encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KahnJohn27, the fact that Wikipedia is not 'public record' has absolutely nothing to do with WP:BLPNAME or WP:AVOIDVICTIM. They are our own policies, covering our own content. And they clearly apply here. There is no obvious encyclopaedic merit of including the child's name, and the fact that the family have asked for privacy is certainly something we should take into consideration, though even without this, I can see nothing in anything you have said which appears to justify inclusion of the name. Why is inclusion "the best thing to do"? Best for whom? Clearly not for the child, or the family. When it comes to such circumstances, policy and practice are clear enough - we don't include names unless there are very good reasons to do so. You have provided none. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No it should not be added. Anyone who thinks this isn't a violation of the family's privacy is exhibiting WP:NOCLUE. You really need to take a course in how people are victimized but we don't have time for that now. MarnetteD | Talk 21:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are past WP:NOCLUE and into the realms of WP:ICANTHEARYOU given KahnJohn27's insistence in this matter.Martin451 00:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The child is entitled to as much privacy as possible in the circumstances. Her involvement is as a secondary victim of a horrendous crime committed against her mother. Keeping her name off Wikipedia (and I would be looking for revdel at the very least wherever it has previously appeared) is a part of letting her get a real life apart from these events. Bielle (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel was suggested at wp:ani recently. I wonder if an admin would be so good as to do it.Martin451 00:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per my previous comments and previous consensus on the talk page. WP:BLPNAME, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:HARM, specific requests for privacy for the daughter from the family (as opposed to KahnJohn27 previously claiming they gave permission) all apply here. There is no good reason to name her.Martin451 00:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the original source is a book which has been cited by the DM. Even so,I don't see any value adding her name.Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose This is an effort by one editor to force an edit against clear-cut consensus on the article talk page. There is no argument in favor of including her name, and between ANI, here and the article talk page, a number made against it. There is clear consensus in opposition already (giving this effort a whiff of forum shopping), and only one editor who cites something he refers to as noticeability (which I assume he has confused with WP:NOTABILITY) and using an irrelevant argument predicated on the handling of public documents as a thin pretext for violating a minor child's privacy for a reason he has never articulated. I see no good, much less compelling, argument to include the daughter's name, and it should be left out. --Drmargi (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose When it comes to WP:BLP, there is a delicate balance between openness and the rights of the subject(s) who are still living. One often hears the mantra that Wikipedia is not censored. Against that we have the policy that we don't include the names of non-notable children, the ruling to keep the child's name out of court records, and the fact that most mainstream media has not published the child's name. Since Wikipedia is often used as a source of information, it could be considered part of the media - and just because the victim said she wanted her daughter's name out of the public record doesn't mean she didn't want it out of other sources as well, including Wikipedia. Further, we should look outside the box of what WP:BLP states and look to why it does so. One reason is to avoid litigation against Wikipedia - which operates with a very small financial base and could well face real jeopardy if sued over this matter. As I stated before, I strongly oppose the inclusion of the child's name. When interpreting rules that are open to interpretation, it's better to err on the side of caution - and "be bold" doesn't equate with "be reckless". Best to keep the minor child's name out of the article.THD3 (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey excuse me over here. But what the hell is this going on? This was not sone consensus started by me. BLP noticeboard is a place where you ask for advice from other users and admins on whether the name should be included or not. And that was my only objective over here. To ask for advice. It isn't a place for a consensus voting, you should have done that on the talk page of the article. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about?!? You opened the thread, and the response has been, the response. There is no set format for how it should be given. People are commenting/voting/whatevering. If you don't like it, too bad!! --Malerooster (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remember there being on DRN about the Delhi gangrape. It said that tabloid can be used as sources because tabloid is a type of newspaper format and it's not necessary that every info in it is gossip. Your comment that Daily Mail cannot be used as a source has no basis in Wikipedia policy. Thanks for hijacking the post by the way. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here Cullen328 says that "Minor children of article subjects should not be mentioned by name unless they are celebrities themselves or are discussed widely in reliable sources." The daughter is discussed in reliable sources so I think she can be mentioned. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Funk

Obviously written by the artist/someone close to them Very poor grammar Does not follow wikipedia structure guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.242.100 (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It was a WP:COPYVIO from here. I have reverted to the version before that was inserted. Cheers! Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 22:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Urgo 2

User AndyTheGrump repeatedly removing factual information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JRU2956 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:AndyTheGrump removed material he identified as a copyright violation. The material, if it's properly sourced, will need rewritten before it can be inserted. —C.Fred (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've also invited User:JRU2956 to discuss further concerns with the article at Talk:Joseph Urgo. —C.Fred (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suzannah Lipscomb

81.108.148.216 repeats information that is contentious, eg that the subject married Drake Lawhead. The marriage is over and the subject does not wish this to be in the public domain. To keep reinserting it shows no regard for the subject's privacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MdeBohun (talk • contribs) 00:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are reliable sources that verify the fact, the subject's wishes are pretty irrelevant. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A blog at my-wedding-concierge.com doesn't seem particularly reliable to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LaChanze

Dear Sir/Madam,

Editor JorgeDMC has repeatedly deleted vital updates to this page. I have been instructed by the Living Person (LaChanze) to update her information on the basis of regularity and accuracy. The names of her minor are not to be displayed under any circumstance.

Please contact me directly if there are any questions.

Sincerely,

Lori Fulton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babylori (talk • contribs) 03:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Babylori and thank you for bringing this to our attention. Minor children of article subjects should not be mentioned by name unless they are celebrities themselves or are discussed widely in reliable sources. This is not the case here. I have the article on my watch list, and have left a note for the editor who added the names of the children. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Johnson Calderon

This biography has been discussed at WP:ANI in recent hours in a section called "Legal threat" and has been the subject of frantic editing. In my opinion, the sourcing of the article is atrocious, and I deeply doubt that any of the current sources establishes the person's notability. It is a morass of gossip, as I see it. I must get to bed, but I would be grateful if other editors with BLP experience would survey the situation and take whatever action is deemed appropriate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This should be redirected to High Society (2010 TV series) as is the usual practice for non-notable reality show "cast".--ukexpat (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Spitzer at Gun control

I have requested an edit be done to the protected article Gun control to remove a BLP violation regarding Robert Spitzer. In the article he is currently said to agree that gun control was used in the genocide of Jews, but we don't have any sources for him saying that. Iselilja (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moughenda Mikala

The moderator says I need a consensus to post a link to a felony warrant issued to Moughenda Mikala. http://www.oakgov.com/sheriff/Pages/most_wanted/fugitives/mickala.aspx

This is a link to a page belonging to the Oakland Sheriff's department in Michigan. Moughenda Mikala is, in fact, a current fugitive, a former doughnut shop clerk, and a garbage truck driver (CHECK THE POLICE SITE, not making this up), who has convinced Western people that he is a "10th generation shaman from Gabon". Nearly everything in the entry is fake (though very specialized and arcane). To start: If you subtract 10 generations, it comes up long before his people arrived in Gabon. "10" just had a nice ring to it. Look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fang_people#Early_population_movements Just do the math. Subtract his age (45) from the number of years after his ancestors arrived in Gabon (circa 1850), then divide the number of generations... and you get 10 generations of 10 year old mothers. Bologna. His website says he can cure AIDS and cancer.

The whole entry for Moughenda Mikala is completely fabricated and fraudulent. I dont know how to change it. Most all of his references on the wiki page are his own interviews. Internet magazine interview him, then he posts the links as a credential.

If this could be added to the end of his entry, it should be fine: "Moughenda Mikala" worked in Detroit as a doughnut shop clerk and a garbage man before become a shaman to Western People." (it is sited below) "Moughenda Mikala is currently a fugitive, wanted in Oakland Country, Michigan on a felony warrant." (Also, sited below)

This is the reference. http://www.oakgov.com/sheriff/Pages/most_wanted/fugitives/mickala.aspx

If this is not acceptable, please let me know hot to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.134.131 (talk • contribs)

What you need are several reliable sources that cover the issue, rather than a single primary source. Beyond that there are issues of weight as well as consensus that things like warrants and arrests are generally excluded from biographies until there is an actual legal outcome. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for engaging. The link is to the Sheriff of Oakland County, Michigan. It is straight from the source. He is a fugitive. What other reference would be acceptable? Any other source would be hearsay. Are you suggesting that the Sheriff's website is not legit? Do you really need a case number? I don't know what would be more sufficient.

Second, he did in fact commit a crime. He failed to show. That is where the warrant comes from. I agree with you that current court proceedings should be excluded, because everyone is innocent until proven guilty. In this case, he is a fugitive, at large, who failed to appear. He has been at large for nearly a year. He is GUILTY of failing to appear. Are you contesting that part? He has committed a crime, a FELONY warrant has been issued, and he is a fugitive. Delinquent child support aside (a child has been abandoned), he is certainly a fugitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.134.131 (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "contesting" anything, I'm saying you are using a primary source, which is never a good idea in biographies (I do hope you read the policy part I linked to previously). As such, adding that to the article is essentially original research, which is even less of a good idea. Find a secondary source, and then you can seek consensus. Without that this is a non-starter. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. One thing we have in common, is that we both want to do the right and responsible thing. Your responses have been courteous and professional. I appreciate that. Thank you for taking the time to look into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.134.131 (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Stone

I checked the materials referenced in the footnotes, and cannot find any support that her brother "Mike Stone" is the same person to whom the link directs. According to IMDB her brother was in a few movies, but I would think there would be some mention of his affair with Priscilla Presley etc. Also the Mike Stone listing does not list Sharon Stone as a sibling, that would certainly be worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.154.159.214 (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Different Mike Stones. Her brother appears to be at IMDB here, whereas the one that was linked from the article seems to be here. Link removed.Martin451 21:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 118: / Line 118: @@
 *There seem to be two groups of sources: those that specifically say "16", and those which report the wedding ring gift and in the course of that give a current age and length of marriage which allow a calculation of an age of sixteen. Typically the most mainstream sources (e.g. ABC News) are in the latter group. One has to suspect that Ms. Robertson's age at marriage was not actually looked up. I'm reluctant to include this, even it be true, unless it escapes from the scandal-mongering tabloids and becomes a more general controversy. [[User:Mangoe|Mangoe]] ([[User talk:Mangoe|talk]]) 18:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 *His age at the time seems to be extracted with original research, though her age does seem somewhat supported. Some conflicting details exist, however, as one source noted above says she was 15. I think it is better to stick with what is there presently where we don't mention age.--[[User:The Devil's Advocate|<font color="vermillion">'''The Devil's Advocate'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:The Devil's Advocate|<font color="burntorange">tlk.</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/The Devil's Advocate|<font color="red">cntrb.</font>]]</sub> 18:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
+Some editors seem quite intent on stressing that the wife was "only 15" at the time of marriage (not strongly sourced at all) (under the LA statutory minimum according to some of those editors).  Is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phil_Robertson&diff=589498596&oldid=589259832] violative of BLP?  [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phil_Robertson&diff=589504272&oldid=589502454]?   [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phil_Robertson&diff=589508027&oldid=589505938]?   [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phil_Robertson&diff=589513405&oldid=589510311]?  Presenting at least four attempts in the course of  only two hours in a manner suggestive of edit war to place the contentious claim into a BLP.  One editor's edit summary states '''completely of the norm in that era w/in the ozarks''' which I think ''might'' not comport with Wikipedia standards.    Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 01:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 == Justin Bieber redux ==

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