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.

Prince Remigius Jerry Kanagarajah

Hi. I would like to request the page for Prince Remigius Jerry Kanagarajah is removed. There has been no Sri Lankan royal family since the 1600s, the country is in a serious civil war, and that someone has put a page up claiming there is a prince, when the only sources are dodgy websites, and a cheesy low budget BBC tv show, its in very poor taste and is quite offensive. The article does not further wikipedia as the person seems to have achieved no serious accomplishments, and his importance is not obvious as he has no political power, and no recognition in the sri lankan community, or the rest of the world for that matter. Frankly I think its disguisting self promotion - more of a personal page than an encyclopaedic entry. Shuggyg (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Remigius Kanagarajah - I'm not sure how many times it has been recreated before the current incarnation, at least once and that time it was Speedied. Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean we can just delete it? or does the decision process require more lengthy debate?Shuggyg (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have renominated the article for deletion; please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Remigius Jerry Kanagarajah (2nd nomination). Skomorokh 02:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Kathleen Battle controversy

This article, dating back to 20064, has been the focus of edit warring since at least October 2007. Two editors have been the main contributors/protagonists: Nrswanson ('anti-subject', since June 2007), Hrannar ('pro-subject', since October 2007). This has been referred here twice in the past, on 23 July 2008 and 12 August 2008. Recently some new editors have become involved, including some suspected sockpuppets (see here).

The controversial section of the article is as follows:

Although Battle gave several critically praised performances at the Metropolitan Opera during the early 1990s, her relationship with the company's management showed increasing signs of strain during those years. As Battle's status grew, so did her reputation for being difficult and demanding. A year earlier "when Miss Battle opened the Boston Symphony Orchestra season, she reportedly banned an assistant conductor and other musicians from her rehearsals, changed hotels several times, and left behind what a report in The Boston Globe called 'a froth of ill will.'" In February 1994, during rehearsals for an upcoming production of La Fille du Régiment, Battle subjected her fellow performers to "withering criticism" and made "almost paranoid demands that they not look at her." General Manager Joseph Volpe responded by dismissing Battle from the production for "unprofessional actions" during rehearsals. Volpe called Battle's conduct "profoundly detrimental to the artistic collaboration among all the cast members" and indicated that he had "canceled all offers that have been made for the future." Battle was replaced in La Fille du Régiment by Harolyn Blackwell. At the time of her termination from the Met, Michael Walsh of Time magazine reported that "the cast of The Daughter of the Regiment applauded when it was told during rehearsal that Battle had been fired."

Is this within the usual bounds of BLP coverage? Specifically, are hearsay accounts by journalists such as Michael Walsh of Time magazine, acceptable when they are properly cited? I'd appreciate opinions from editors familiar with BLP disputes.

P.S. I'm not a contributor. I was asked to help mediate the dispute. Thank you. --Kleinzach 00:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

In the context of the article, it doesn't seem too much of a problem. It's not so large that it raises WP:UNDUE issues, and these are respected commentators and sources. Unless there are other sources to contradict this, it seems OK. I would tweak it by adding "was said to have" to "Battle subjected...". Rd232 ^talk 14:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Rd232. You mention, "Unless there are other sources to contract this, it seems OK." Where can we find this notion of "unless other sources to contract" in the wikipedia guidelines? Better understanding all the guidelines is super helpful, so please refer me to the section in guidelines discussing this. Thanks again!Hrannar (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

I'm not sure if policy says that anywhere in so many words, but it's basically WP:V: we rely on reliable sources; where they contradict each other, then we have to exercise some judgement in how to deal with the contradiction (usually just reporting it). Rd232 ^talk 01:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally I think the material is OK. It's placed in the correct chronological position, rather than having a pov section of it's own. The sources meet WP:RS. There isn't a violation of WP:UNDUE, but a slight trim would be favorable. The article could do a better job of noting that these are not stone cold proven facts, but rather allegations. — R² 04:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both. That's helpful. --Kleinzach 03:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Realist2 for pointing out that these are not proven facts. The irony of it all is that individuals like Volpe and even our recent editor, nrswanson, make allegations and reports about another, when they themselves appear to have the attributes they accuse their subjects of. Regardless of the specific subjects, we don't know why a person does what they do and without specific facts or context. Perhaps Volpe and Battle have valid points on their end, so let's (per wikipedia guidelines) be neutral by showing both their perspectives, out of fairness to the both of them. But not offer more weight to one perspective or the other. Hrannar (talk) 21:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

According to the link provide, "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the Washington Post in the States and the Times in Britain, as well as widely used conglomerates such as the Associated Press." It goes on to mention "some caveats" such as "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text. 'In articles about living persons,' (differs from non BLP) only material from 'high-quality' news organizations should be used. / Is Time Magazine considered a high quality news organization like AP? It certainly is mainstream, and decent quality, but it is not clear that journalists would consider it the same high quality standard as the washington post, for example. / My concern was the editor Eudemis and nrswanson (who created sockpuppet to help support his assertions) asserted, insisted that information such as leaving trail/froth of ill will was 'fact' and fashioning the article to support that view. Does that make sense? Also, they define her as 'difficult' but it really doesn't seem to include balance, allowing for other point of view. Whenever other point of view is provided, it is removed. So there doesn't seem to be complete neutrality and conservative reporting, appears slightly biased toward a view that SOME consider her difficult. Any efforts to share opposite view seem to be met with opposition. Again my major concern. Happy to show that we can be a model of neutrality, by including both sides. Hrannar (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

To help ensure equal weight to both sides, and therefore, NPOV, took the lead of a moderator, voceditenore, who offered the following and provided rationale, stating It gives an equal amount of space to what Volpe said in the Met press release in terms of why he fired her and what Battle said in hers. It confines itself to that. / Fairly straight forward. Here is the suggested phrasing Suggested phrasing from moderator. Mostly this was done to remove several potentially libelous statements and bring the section discussing the termination to a telling that provides equal voice to both parties involved. In the version that existed for about a month, it was clearly written from a biased perspective, giving more airtime to Volpe, if you count the sentences and phrasing used. Hrannar (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Hrannar

Murder of James Bulger

• Murder of James Bulger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe there are significant problems with this article, not so much about the subject victim, but about the two convicted murderers, both of whom are still alive. There is much unsourced or poorly sourced negative personal information (e.g., details about their broken families, allegations that the mother of one of them was suicidal, tabloid-sourced rumours of heroin use post release from prison, etc). Editors with access to British news sources would probably be helpful in clearing this up. Risker (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed some of the more suspect post release stuff, and added a couple of cites for the family life prior to the murder. With a case like this, there will be a lot of news sources that will never be neutral. Martin451 (talk) 05:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to BLP/N. I noticed the article's problems a few weeks ago and planned to bring it to here but seem to have forgotten Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Susan Boyle unsourced insults

I went to read the Susan Boyle article to read about the show after hearing her sing on the radio. Imagine my surprise to find this unsourced comment in the article:

"Before she sang, both the audience and the judges appeared to express scepticism based on her age and what was seen as an unattractive appearance."

Says who? Say en.wiki editors? It's hard to believe I have to actually request that this be referenced or removed. Would an administrator monitoring this board remove this immediately. I'm not interested in putting this on the article's talk page. This is precisely the sort of crap that this policy is supposed to prevent. --KP Botany (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The article was protected earlier, so I would bring this to the talk page before its unprotected. Synergy 10:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What a lame and irresponsible response. The point of posting here is NOT to have discussion about her physical appearance on the article talk page. What is it about the BLPs that administrators cannot understand the policy and take responsibility for crap like this? I bet I can find a dozen administrators on AN/I rediscussing long dead issues about the usual half dozen users and not a single one of them ever monitors this board. Would an administrator--if any monitor this--please remove this unsourced line from the article without debating the issue on the article talk page? Would anyone who is not an administrator keep their opinions about the matter to themselves? It's not an opinion discussion. It's simple. It's unsourced. It's negative, and it's bs. It's a BLP. Remove it. --KP Botany (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No. The line was added by SlimVirgin and is supported by the reference in the sentence following it. That aside, non-administrators are welcome to help on this board. So, rather than spew insults at them, perhaps it would be best that you verify that a claim is libelous before demanding, rudely, that it be removed. لennavecia 05:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The article seemed okay to me. In this case you have to include some unpleasant things or else you can not tell this person's story. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, her appearance is a key element in all of this. Many adjectives are being used by the press to describe her appearance, including "unattractive" and some that are rather more blunt, e.g. The Huffington Post. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The appearance matter should be attended to, but how about her previous occupations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rararah (talk • contribs) 14:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Charities accused of ties to terrorism

Regarding this edit and the reverts and rereverts of it in Charities accused of ties to terrorism. An explicitly attributed statement regarding a charity accused of having ties to terrorism is being challenged on the grounds that it is a BLP violation to say that a noted academic in the field (Juan Cole) has accused this charity of having ties to terrorism makes a BLP vio of the group they are claiming to be engaged in terrorism. Is this a BLP issue? Nableezy (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no BLP issue. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No, given the nature of the list (why doesn't it have List in the title?), with explicit attribution, it seems fine. Rd232 ^talk 15:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The attribution is to a very marginal source - an openly partisan magazine, which accuses an identifiable group of people of being "essentially terrorists" - which is a potentially actionable libelous claim. NoCal100 (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It is cited to a column by Juan Cole, by definition a RS for the opinion of Juan Cole. Nableezy (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah - this is a I/P issue - regardless of what we decide here the nutters on both side will argue about it forever and I don't want those sort of batshit crazy loons on my talkpage so I'll make no further comment on this issue. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP is the wrong policy to cite as a biography refers to specific details which form a story about a particular individual's life.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with the libel argument. The accusation is 100% dependent on an unverifiable claim. In fact, I can't find any other website verifying Juan's erroneous claim outside of that website. How can we be sure Juan Cole wrote that since it's not an RS? For those who dismiss BLP, let's take a look at verifiability: Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles and do not move it to the talk page (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for details of this policy). As Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has put it:. It's a shame this has gone for so long. (mostly copied and pasted from original talk, sorry, dispute has become quite repetitive).Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a BLP issue. The facts are not in dispute, the only issue is interpretation thereof. That interpretation is sourced, but the facts themselves are also given, so people can make up their own minds about the claim. Note that as usual, lists and categories create either/or situations that do not permit the sort of nuance prose does. The same info has been in the Capital Athletic Foundation article since at least 2006; without the contested interpretation that the equipment was intended for terrorism. Rd232 ^talk 23:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

None of the cited info is in that article. Try again. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Outcome subssection, second paragraph: Capital Athletic Foundation#Outcome. Rd232 ^talk 23:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No where it is referenced as TERRORISM. Comprehension much? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear enough above. Facts: provision of sniper equipment. Interpretation: sniper equipment to be used for terrorism. Now read again what I said before. Rd232 ^talk 23:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Stupid. Sniper equipment and training is standard and LEGAL in the settlements. Everyone owns guns. You might interpret that as terrorism, but legally and logically speaking it is not. Try reading the talk (which you clearly have not) and you would realize over a page was dedicated to this very fact. Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I grow weary of your insults today, here and elsewhere. WP:CIVIL, and while we're at it (for comments elsewhere) WP:AGF. Legality aside, AFAIK sniper guns are offensive weapons not used for personal or home defence. However it's pointless debating our views of this, we need to rely on the relevant sources. Rd232 ^talk 04:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I grow weary of your refusal to recognize Nableezy's disruption, abuse, and sheer arrogance which you have supported. My "stupid" was not directed at you, but what you said. It was stupid. See To call a spade a spade. All your "points" were thoroughly discussed in the talk. The repetition is aggravating and the fact that you are an admin makes hard for me to believe this is out of carelessness. Snipers being offensive does not = terrorism. That is your POV, something we call OR if it were in the article. No RS support Cole's agenda, zero. Burden of proof shows this needs to go and I cannot think of a rationalization for your opinion other than it is ideology based. Put in the terrorism accusation in original article. There are far more editors who will whine than at Charities accused of ties to terrorism. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have a problem with another editor, there are procedures for help or escalation. As to ideology, if the situation were anonymised, then given the nature of sniper equipment (even apart from the history and the comments of some involved), most would argue for a martial interpretation; and in a martial context, for persons not involved in an organised military campaign, sniper equipment has mostly a terror function (see sniper, Psychological Warfare section). But, whatever. Classic unresolvable I/P difference of opinion over something that ultimately can't change anything of any significance, so let's just agree to differ and please tone down your attitude. Rd232 ^talk 14:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What you are missing is that Cole himself is a Professor and Commentator on the event being discussed, and he is giving his commentary on said topic. The opinion is also directly attributed to him.--75.2.19.152 (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay I'm confused, who are you claiming are the affected party/ies per BLP? Juan Cole? Jack Abrahamoff? The donors to the charity? The recepients of the charity funds/equipement? Nil Einne (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Douglas Tottle

A group of user insists on insertion of {{Falsification of history}} into the biography of living Canadian writer Douglas Tottle. The author was indeed criticised for being too soft on Soviet government, this criticism is reflected in the article. Still I think we cannot state the accusations as an established fact by pasting this navigational template. (Alex Bakharev)

It is a BLP violation, in my mind, as it is not a widely held view, and particularly on a figure who is probably not all that notable in the first place. The template itself has MASSIVE BLP and POV problems, look at the name of it for one. --Russavia ^Dialogue 23:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No template. Agree we Russavia and Alex Bakharev. "The author was indeed criticised for being too soft on Soviet government, this criticism is reflected in the article." - Correct. BLP violation - correct. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with using this template. Based on sources now provided in his article, he belongs to people who deny the Holodomor, a genocidal event that should be remembered along with the Holocaust.Biophys (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheap trick. You don't even know what he "denies". Famine? He never claims that there was no famine. Genocide? More than 200 countries in the world do not recognize this event as genocide. So let's nail all of them with such template. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Agree per Biophys, template is appropriate. Denying Soviet crimes and falsifying history in support of denying Soviet crimes is more than "being too soft on Soviet government". Martintg (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Reply to Beatle Fab Four. It does not matter what I think. It matters what the sources tell. For example, his article tells:

In his book, Searching for place, Lubomyr Luciuk comments: "For a particularly base example of famine-denial literature, see Tottle, Fraud, famine, and fascism...".[9] In 1988 the International Commission of Inquiry Into the 1932–33 Famine in Ukraine was set up to establish whether the famine existed and its cause. Tottle was invited by the commission to attend the hearings, however he ignored the request. While the commission was organized along judicial lines, it had no judicial power to compel witnesses to attend or testify. However Tottle's book was examined during the Brussels sitting of the commission[10], held between May 23 - 27, 1988, with testimony from various expert witnesses. The commission president Professor Jacob Sundberg subsequently concluded that Tottle was not alone in his enterprise to deny the famine on the basis that material included in his book could not have been available to a private person without official Soviet assistance.

And so on. So, the sources qualify him as a Holodomor denialist.Biophys (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a single about why do they curse him. Is this a scientific critique? What was correct in his book, what was wrong? The reader doesn't know this. He can only see that some people call him a bastard. Nothing more. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Gahh. I don't believe that template ought even to exist. By grouping together a whole set of disparate events as "falsification of history", it essentially functions as an original synthesis, making assertions that the reader can't verify because they're implicit in the template rather than explicit and sourced. Looie496 (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The articles provide explicit sources, the template merely provides a navigational aid between these articles. If the issue is the template name, then that is for discussion on the template talk page.

I agree that using such template is not really relevant to BLP issues, as it mostly serves for navigation. Biophys (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Looie496 is absolutely right. It's a horrible template. Using it here is nothing but original synthesis. I think we need to ask ourselves: are such inherently problematic and POV-pushing templates really necessary in WP? Offliner (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Based on available sources, endorse this navbox in this article. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Agree While the template name is not as genteel as many would like, there appear to be published sources cited in the article that directly make the accusation [1]or one similar "Soviet apologist, Douglas Tottle" [2] While the template exists, it applies here. --Eudemis (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Linking him with the Holodomor is one thing, there are sources for that. But the template indirectly links him to the Ku Klux Klan, the Holocaust, and the Armenian genocide. That's an improper synthesis in my opinion. Looie496 (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sunny Lane

It says she is working as a prostitute, unreliable source. Hello, wake up! These kinds of claims are highly libellious!--Whimsical biblical (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are the sources unreliable? Looie496 (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

While none of the sites directly say she is a prostitute (both mentions in the lead, which means 5 sources altogether), she does in fact work for the Bunny Ranch, where there is legalized prostitution. I'd suggest we rewrite it to say that "she sometimes works at the Bunny Ranch". Any thoughts? Synergy 19:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't actually object, but sometimes I think we go to far. Let's be honest. Porn stars don't get jobs at the Bunny Ranch doing light house work or accounting.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? :O Gwen Gale (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's just say it's original research.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Truth be told, I think the cited sources support the assertion. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Her job title is unstated, but you can "book an appointment"[3] with her, so that may possibly exclude light housework or accounting, barring her having the credentials of a CPA. Quatloo (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I imagine that there are lots of guys who will now use the euphemism of "getting their taxes done" in reference to visiting the Bunny Ranch. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 05:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on. This should be removed under WP:V and WP:BLP. The Moonlight Bunny Ranch should properly be considered as a questionable source under WP:V as it does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and is promotional in nature. It should only be used as a source for the Moonlight Bunny ranch article or Dennis Hof under WP:SELFPUB. Further, sources should directly support the assertions presented. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Found a reliable source about her working at the brothel, which I will put in. [4] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Added several other citations which supports the assertion that she worked at the Bunny Ranch.[5][6][7] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur)

An editor is raising concerns about this biographical article here, and I just wanted to make sure people who monitor this section were aware of the matter.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Mr Marshal. Appreciate the help. I am new here - so please bear with me if I do not follow the exact form I am supposed to. I am trying to learn the protocols.

I have tried to reason with the editors that seem set on preservation at all costs. I’m still to read up on Twinkle, but I’ve been Twinkled out a few times and then manually reverted as well.

I would appreciate and welcome third party reviews and comments on Mr Ahmed's profile and revisions. While he has undoubtedly been in the public eye for a number of reasons, I believe that that the previous slant on all stories have been highly negative, rather than neutral with the most controversial aspects of the stories reported on and in fact misreported on. I would hope that my efforts in securing a more balanced article are self evident from the edits. But I'd like to raise a number of points here for consideration and discussion.

Firstly this is a Biography of a real live living person as such they affect real lives and should be treated with consideration to this. I firmly believe they should not be treated as a forum to regurgitate tabloid sensationalism. It was my understanding that this is a primary tenet of Wikipedia. Am I mistaken?

Specifically the comment likening Syed Ahmed to David Brent, while apparently accurately reported is not attributed to a specific identifiable source (i.e. the person that said it) in the referenced article. It is however quite clearly a defamatory comment. Without recourse to the specific source it should be treated as an unreliable comment and stricken in line with policy. With regard to the story of arrest, it is pretty clear if you read all available internet sources on the matter that: the underlying issue involved Syed Ahmed business partner (unrelated but sharing the same surname). I have attempted (on multiple occasions) to correct the article to reflect this and also to balance the tone of the article without simply restating the entire reference articles. I also fail to see how stating that someone has obtained examinations (a published matter in the UK) is peacock like or promotional. I also do not see that stating he was 17 to 18 when did his diploma is also out of keeping with policy, tone or other biographies - another edit that was blithely reverted on multiple occasions. With regard to references to his current work - I think this relevant, I don't believe it's promotional it is simply reporting published fact - they're not in fact edits I made, just restored (althouh they may have gone again now). On a personal note I find the fact he's still persevering with a project that delivers a significant reduction in energy usage laudable (anyone agree with this?) – especially considering the current ecological precipice of the world. Does this last point represent a conflict of interest? If so then surely anyone who holds an opinion on anything would be barred from editing anything they knew anything about where they held an opinion. Please advise as to whether I am alone in this opinion regarding the importance of balance in living biographies and where there is doubt to let goodwill prevail and err on the side of caution or whether I am supported in this view. Thank you. Amicaveritas (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Requesting Mediation Cabal following escallating WP:DR procedure

A user has requested mediation on this issue. A mediator will be here shortly to assist you. The case page for this mediation is located here.

Amicaveritas (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I think the cited source is reliable, there may be a meaningful question as to whether this coverage is too thin under WP:WEIGHT to support these claims. Although I think there's a conflict of interest on this topic, this doesn't sway my thinking that the content should not be in the article until we've looked into this further. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see also my comments at User_talk:Amicaveritas#Syed_Ahmed_.28entrepreneur.29. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Irfan Yusuf

I'm concerned about the version of this article being pushed by a single editor (the current version). At one point the self-identified subject of the article was voicing unhappiness with the article and trying to "fix" it. They were rewarded with an indefinite block. I read the article and it seemed to be far from NPOV. I've done my best to fix it. It's been discussed on the talk page and another editor agreed "generally" with my opinion, and the version of the article I've tried to maintain. But the lone editor reverting to a different version of the article has continued to do so. I don't want to engage in edit warring and the subject matter isn't anything I have the least interest in so I'd rather spend my time elsewhere. But I don't feel right about just leaving it be. If others feel their version is appropriate I'm fine with that, and I'm bringing it here for consideration. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've made some edits, cleaning up the article and removing a number of unsourced statements and one egregious BLP violation [8] (the article implies he accused someone of having a bomb, when he merely said he couldn't be sure that she didn't, in the context of a debate about muslim headscarfs), [9]. Rd232 ^talk 02:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Salvatore Inzerillo

Character Defamation

This is a very serious issue concerning an artist I represent - Salvatore Inzerillo

He is properly placed as a living artist in a substantial production in this article:

   * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Hopped_the_%27A%27_Train

The above Article links him to this Article:

   * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvatore_Inzerillo

This is not the same person; it is defamatory, wrong, misleading and insulting.

When I attempted to create a new Article for the living Salvatore Inzerillo, it was refused, and yet there are articles I sited within Wikipedia as well as extremely reputable sites throughout the Internet.

I refuse to accept this abomination of my clients character and hope that Wikipedia can restore Salvatore Inzerillo's name as a separate person in a separate Article before I continue with legal action.

On Wikipedia My client is properly cited:

   * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Hopped_the_%27A%27_
   * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAByrinth_Theater_Company

On the Internet:

   * http://www.labtheater.org/companymembers/member30.html
   * http://pro.imdb.com/name/nm1935273/maindetails
   * http://theater2.nytimes.com/mem/theater/treview.html?pagewanted=print&_r=1&res=9B05E1DD123DF933A05752C1A9669C8B63&oref=slogin
   * http://theater2.nytimes.com/mem/theater/treview.html?res=9B0CE2DF1F3FF932A15754C0A96F958260&fta=y
   * http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/30/theater/theater-review-anachronism-in-a-t-shirt-bewildered-by-a-fast-moving-world.html
   * http://www.wilmatheater.org/productions/2004_jesus.html
   * http://www.catholicdigest.com/article/sal-inzerillo-actor-portrayed-simon-the-zealot
   * http://www.playbill.com/news/article/96538.html
   * http://www.rattlestick.org/news/150
   * http://www.patriciafletcher.com/dialect_coaching.php
   * http://www.hospitalaudiences.org/hai/pubs/news/winter02/4.htm
   * http://www.developingartists.org/news.html

Salvatore Inzerillo is not a dead heroin trafficking murderer.

I am requesting that this be rectified in a very timely fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Promethius11 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Previously posted and handled at WP:EAR. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: the issue seems to be that there are multiple Salvatore Inzerillos. Redlinks relating to the artist have been modified accordingly. Rd232 ^talk 14:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP1E modification

The policy on WP:BLP1E was recently changed,[10] in my opinion substantially weakening it. The preceding discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Premature BLP1E AfD's focussed on wanting to prevent BLPs created in response to an event being sent to WP:AFD "prematurely" i.e. before it's clear whether the person will be notable for more than this event. I don't see how the changes address this issue, or that changes are an improvement irrespective of that issue. More input would be appreciated. Rd232 ^talk 14:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is essentially a democratic institution, and in a democracy, when people try to use rules to thwart the will of massive majorities (as in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle), there is always collateral damage. It looks like the change is specifically aimed at invalidating the arguments that were used in that AfD. Looie496 (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

By "arguments" I take it you're referring to the reference in that AFD to BLP1E. So how does the fact that 85% of people in that AFD decided BLP1E didn't apply require a general weakening of the rule? The old rule was flexible enough to accommodate the case. In any case, WP:NOT a legal system - one AFD is not a "precedent" which requires changing policy to fit. Rd232 ^talk 23:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is certainly not a democracy, essential or otherwise. That is core policy. See WP:NOT.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of WP:NOT, but saying something doesn't make it true. All major decisions are made by voting -- even if people like to call it !voting -- and that's the essence of a democracy. Looie496 (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) So back on topic, are people in general agreement that the changes are a good idea? Would anyone care to comment on my alternative proposal at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Premature BLP1E AfD's? Rd232 ^talk 23:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert Boylestad

• Robert Boylestad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The following comment was left in the wrong place. I figure it belongs here. There's various mentions of blocks, OTRS, and the Foundation in the picture. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

In March I went through a long discussion about why I did not want to be included in your encyclopedia based on what was presented without any input from me. However, after the discussion he agreed that I should be deleted. However, I took the time to rewrite the bio as I wanted it to appear but your system is such that anyone can rewrite and now it is in a similar form to the form I disliked in March. Every change I have made is correct and reflects what I wanted it to appear -- not what you feel is appropriate. It is hard for me to understand how "you" can decide what should appear under my name after 70 years of existance and not "me". Again, I discussed in detail with the former editor why I wanted it deleted. I refuse to go through all that again -- this is very upsetting to me and I can tell you it is affecting my general health as I write this -- Yes, I have used your encyclopedia -- in general it is very well done. However, when it comes to a bio I feel you should let the "person" decide what should be included and not what you can dig up on the computer. So long as everything is accurate I can't not understand why you can not provide the courtesy via email that a bio is to be published and we want your input to be sure you are content with the description. I want my privacy and ask you nicely to simply remove it -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boylestad (talk • contribs) 12:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

the policy is otherwise, and I think fortunately so. Consider the general case: who would ask for the article deletions? --primarily the people who did not like their articles. And then no bio of a living person we had here could be trusted for objectivity. If the subject decided "what should be included" there would indeed be some modest people like you, but a lot more utter vanity, and then we wouldn't be an encyclopedia worth using at all. DGG (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Your right that he can't just decide to not have an article on himself. But, I also think in this case, we shouldn't have an article, based on WP:BLP. There just aren't substantial third-party sources about him personally. He says he's a "dean". We say he's just an "assistant dean". I don't see anyway of verifying which is correct. I could remove the poorly sourced material, but then he comes of looking like some random person who happened to write a book, without indicating his qualifications, which seems very unfair. Given that this survived an AFD already, I'm really not sure what can be done. I don't see anyway this can be made a good article, as there just aren't sufficient sources with depth. --Rob (talk) 06:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP violation on Jim Price (baseball)#Criticisms?

Hi it seems like the information at Jim Price (baseball)#Criticisms is pretty libelous. It sounds like a former colleague and a former team mate had some REALLY nasty words to say about him. They're from 2 separate published sources and well known people though so that's why I asked. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the information is a violation of BLP per se, as the comments are properly referenced. BLP requires contentious material that is poorly referenced to be removed from biographies of living persons, but does not address material that is referenced to reliable sources. However, I think that you may be justified in removing the material on the basis of "Wikipedia:Libel" (no supporting facts were given indicating the truth of the allegations) and "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view" (there is no information on whether this view is shared by other commentators). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ashley MacIsaac

Resolved

 – Skomorokh 02:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ashley MacIsaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - quite a few BLP violations, I've removed all the major faults and integrated the "Controversies" section but would appreciate someone else looking at the remaining bits after the Career section. It's not too long. -- Banjeboi 04:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The Career section largely checks out, and there isn't really anything potentially defamatory about the Political involvement section as far as I can see. Skomorokh 02:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, and after a search for sources to verify the text, I have removed a large part of the section until it can be verified. Tentatively marking this resolved. Skomorokh 02:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Dikembe Mutombo

• 76.115.92.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Dikembe Mutombo suffered a career ending knee injury last night. 76.115.92.239 horribly vandalized his article twice. [11][12] Could somebody please block this troll? JCDenton2052 (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Harold Koh

The article in question has serious NPOV issues. Koh is currently up for consideration as Obama's Legal Adviser of the Department of State and has generated some controversy. Koh's research assistant has expressed concerns about the current state of the article. In particular, there is concern that a) the article as currently written gives UNDUE weight to critical views and also while listing conservative complaints fails to note the many conservatives who have come out in favor of Koh such as Ken Starr and Ted Olson. I myself have a bit of a COI and so would not feel comfortable dealing with this. I'm thus bringing it to the attention of the noticeboard here. I've also commented on the article talk page mentioning specific sources that should probably be added. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see how you might want to stay out of it. I've posted a comment to the talkpage and should be able to do some work on it later this afternoon. Ted Olson's comments should be included more prominently, and I think there is a place for Justice Ginsburg's recent comments on the same issue (although not Koh directly). The section on transnationalism as it stands is basically a hit piece, almost entirely criticism of his position without even describing it -- except through the lens of that criticism. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 17:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have removed the section (see my comment here). I think we need to be very careful about what is written on Wikipedia, especially is something is a misrepresentation of an individual's views. This has the possibility to become the wikiality. Khoikhoi 18:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting think (since for legal reasons it's not possible to transwiki WP:NOTNEWS violations to Wikinews) we should try a lot harder to encourage people working on current events-related things to head over to Wikinews, and try and leave editing the related WP articles for when the passage of time allows a modicum of perspective. This is especially true as in the near future transwiki from Wikinews to Wikipedia will be possible (assuming the switch to CC licence goes through), but not the other way. Rd232 ^talk 02:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Darren Hayes

Resolved

 – Section re-written, everyone seems happy with it. Kevin (talk) 03:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Darren Hayes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Hayes came out of the closet as gay in major media and press. Though there is mention in his biography section of having a male partner, it was neither sourced nor did it IMPLICITLY state he is gay. Obviously Hayes thought this information was important enough to make public via the press, and the general consensus on Wikipedia has been that when a public person of note reveals their sexuality to be other-than-heterosexual, and it can be referenced/sourced, it is noteworthy and should be included in their biography. However, I have made slight edits to this page four times in a row and biased individuals who clearly do not understand WHY the sexual preference of a public figure is noteworthy, continue to revert my edits and give straw-man arguments as to why (such as the old chestnut "We don't put that straight people are straight...") I would like someone of authority to intervene. // CouplandForever (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me this is best handled via continuoing the ongoing discussion (which I've done on the talk page), not administrator intervention Nil Einne (talk) 06:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Kevin (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Philip Markoff: full details of murder case?

Philip Markoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Or should fullest details more properly be contributed to Julissa Brisman (murder victim) prior any confession or conviction? ↜Just me, here, now … 12:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The name of the event is Murder of Julissa Brisman and is not an article about Julissa Brisman. Please review naming conventions already in use before moving articles. Otherwise, use the talk page. Philip Markoff is another subject altogether. Viriditas (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I created the victim/case article on the 23rd under yet a different title (viz "Craigslist Killer (Boston)") -- but, be that as it may, my question at hand has absolutely nothing at all to do with this article's title! Rather (to reiterate) it has got to do with whether details having to do with the case/victims should primarily be discussed at the article about the case, according to Wiki's BLP guidelines, or at the article about the accused, Philip Markoff. ↜Just me, here, now … 21:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

An Ambitious Proposal

Preliminary comments welcomed. But basically if there are willing editors and someone can just generate the list this can get rolling pretty quick. - Mailer Diablo 04:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Leonard Peikoff

on * Leonard Peikoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An editor - Eleland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding defamatory material to both the article and the Talk page. I've removed the BLP-violating material from the article, but don't know if it is appropriate to remove the user's comments from the Talk page. Also, what should be done about the editor? NoCal100 (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't quite see how this is defamatory -- it's sourced directly from essays that Peikoff wrote. Could you clarify why you think the material is defamatory? Looie496 (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It accuses a living person of advocating genocide - based on a Wikipedia's editor interpretation of an essay by that person. That's simply something we don't do. I removed that. the Talk page comments further describe a living person as a "sick fuck" and as a 'little Goebbels'. If you can't see how that is defamatory, you should rethink your participation in this noticeboard. NoCal100 (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak for the whole article history, but this edit by Eleland is quite titillating. Granted, I didn't read the whole Peikoff piece, but I think labelling it as "advocacy of genocide" is pretty POV, even if Peikoff is a terrible guy. From what I did read of the piece, I don't agree with his argument, but that doesn't mean it's fair for a WP editor to characterize it in that way; that's just one editor's own interpretation. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Martin Cassidy

We have here an article about a minor comedian who founded a comedy club that is not notable enough for its own article and whose main claim to notability is that he died in circumstances that are titillating and highly embarrassing for his surviving loved ones. Three paragraph article, one paragraph is about his death. It was listed on 'Did you know... that he died watching porn, until I removed it. I'd like a second opinion on whether the article should even exist. Thatcher 12:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say no. 1BE would seem to apply - all references relate to his death. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 14:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree that this person should not have an article since he is known only for one event. Since it was his death, it is pretty unlikely that he will become well known for other accomplishments. Major undue weight issues. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Third concurance Nil Einne (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

WTF was going on that this was greenlighted at DYK? Agreed that this article is a good example of what we should not be doing. Should this go to AfD? How are these sorts of BLP issues being handled these days? MastCell ^Talk 21:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing where WP runs into problems. As a B(L)P1E, it should be merged into the event. But the event surely isn't significant enough for its own article (WP:NOTNEWS). Yet given the media coverage it technically meets notability, so the odds are probably pretty low that an AFD nomination on those grounds will succeed. (WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS are often in conflict, and WP:N usually wins, especially at AFD.) I suppose it's the thing to do, and when that doesn't succeed, we could try and reach consensus on the talk page to at least minimise the detail. Rd232 ^talk 23:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Cassidy. Rd232 ^talk 04:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not, of course, a BLP issue, since he is not an LP. Looie496 (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

But his ex-wife, children, nieces, nephews, parents, and other grieving loved ones are. Preventing the subject from suing us is not the only reason to be careful about these sort of articles. Thatcher 17:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Michelle Knight

Resolved

Any concerns can be raised here. No need for two forums. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Msknight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - is trying to create an article about herself. A draft is at User:Msknight/Draft. She has been given good advice on her talk page and at WP:Ear#Review.2FIntention_of_auto-biographical_article, but doesn't seen to understand our policies.// Jezhotwells (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that I don't think it's a wilful disregard for policy, but rather someone who has a valid query which should be given proper consideration and discussion by the community at her self posted request at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Review.2FIntention_of_auto-biographical_article. This should be closed as the matter can be discussed at the other forum. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Advice requested

A while back I started working on a proposal: User:Tznkai/desk/Stub_protection_of_low_activity_BLPs. I would very much like some input on it.--Tznkai (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

George Zinkhan

The murders, he is alleged to have committed and that spawned creation of this article, just happened today. I'm thinking this falls under BLP1E. Do we want to have an article like this? Should someone nominated it at AfD? I'm not going to nominate it, but wanted to call attention to it amongst folks who think more aboout issues like blp1e. LadyofShalott 04:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, completely unreferenced negative article about a living person, doesn't meet either [{WP:PROF]] or WP:N/CA at this point. An article may be appropriate at some point, but this wasn't it. Risker (talk) 04:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good call. I have it watchlisted. I'm thinking without some salt sprinkled on, this may get recreated repeatedly (and not necessarily even in good faith). LadyofShalott 04:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It's back as George M. Zinkhan. Also note that have redirected articles about two of his otherwise non-notable alleged victims to this page too - Tom Tanner, and Ben Teague. There is also a redirect from Marie Bruce, another alleged victim, also otherwise non-notable. None of the victims is worthy of their own articles so these redirects should probably be sent to Afd.  – ukexpat (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a stub about the murders, but that has been redirected to George M. Zinkhan. So, this BLP is the sole article about it. Make no mistake, even though he has academic achievements that are discussed, this shooting is the only reason an article has been created on Wikipedia about this man. LadyofShalott 00:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Michelle Leslie

This article is really trash. If WP was really what it claims to be it would have not been started in the first place. I doubt an AfD would be successful. Maybe it could be cleaned up, by someone with a stronger stomach than I. Borock (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I filed an AfD and it looks like some progress is being made.Borock (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Chinese gymnasts

hello folks we are having an issue with those four age-disputed chinese gymnasts. (He Kexin, Jiang Yuyuan, Yang Yilin, and Deng Linlin) I have been making edits changing use of the word "controversy" in section titles, in line with the theory that it was being used as a loaded tern to cast aspersion (sp?). I originally changed things to "dispute" but I faced some resistence to that from one editor so we discussed it and eventually found a compromise using the word "debate". This was until another editor got wind of this and has started rvt-ing all my edits on this front, always forcing the word "controvery" back into the section headers (not just text body). That strikes me as HIGHLY POV but you be the judge. I am sick of trying to deal with this and sick of building consensus and then having some other editor decide i'm an IP vandal and blanket rvt me. So I come to you folks even though its saturday night and we all have better things to do. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to comment here, please have a look at Talk:He Kexin#Controversy over? before taking this IP's statement at face value. There was never a "compromise" between him and User:Readin to change the wording; Readin's statement was 'I think "controversy" is slightly better because "debate" in my mind implies a discussion between equals'. This IP editor has repeatedly changed the wording in the article with edit summaries like "don't revert me against consensus," when there is absolutely no consensus; as of yet, nobody other than him has supported these changes. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 07:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry its just easy to misinterpret quotes like this "While dispute would not be correct for reasons we've discussed above, debate would be an acceptable alternative"... from the other editor who is actually working with me on this... 72.0.187.239 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC).

on a sidenote could you guys also give an opinion of, putting "age disputed etc" with a ref, right after the cited birthdate, in both the lede and the infobox (all in addition to the actual section). This is only happening on the He Kexin page and I think its pretty non-standard.

That was discussed at Talk:He Kexin#He's DOB, which you can look at for a review of the arguments that have been brought up before. I don't believe any specific conclusion was reached. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I remember now. The discussion concluded at Talk:He Kexin#Readin's addition to the info box and article. Over there we reached a consensus to list 1992 as the official DOB but leave a note pointing to the controversy section, partly to remain balanced and partly to ward of edit warring over which date would be included. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Children of a notable subject

What is the situation regarding making mention of the children of a subject? Example: "John Doe has been married twice and has three children by his second wife: Jane, born 1973, Janet, born 1984, and John Junior born 1986." The information is supported by reliable sources (but not extensively). However, the subject writes in and objects. My inclination would be not to include the material because of the objection, but I wanted to check that this is acceptable information to suppress. SilkTork *^YES! 15:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a specific case, or is this a hypothetical? This has been the subject of much discussion lately. SDY (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There can be a significant change in wording to say "John Doe has three children by his second wife" and leave it at that. The names and dates of birth of the children are usually not necessary for most situations and, for people who are not incredibly famous, can unnecessarily make the children vulnerable to real-world harm. Risker (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

To SDY: It is a specific case, but no names simply because the email I was forwarded said: "an extensive on-wiki discussion would probably cause more harm to the individuals of subject than good." However, I wanted some advice from people more experienced in this than myself. Thanks for the link to the discussion, I shall read through it.

To Risker. Thanks, that sounds like a reasonable solution. SilkTork *^YES! 16:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Bill O'Reilly

All it is a collection of negative stuff people said about Oreilly. I dont really like him but come on, how is this neutral? Also even if it was not insanely biased how does this warrant a encyclopedia page? You can find random negative comments on any1 from someone with a apposing view. I would understand the need for this page if some of the criticism was from important sources but almost all off it is from Bill Oreilly opposites who's jobs are sort of to attack him. Every time Oreilly goes off on someone it does not necessarily deserve inclusion in an article. DRxAWESOME (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC){{|DRxAWESOME}}

In any case, this has been argued about multiple times before and the consensus is clear. You may want to read the previous discussions to get an idea what has already been said:

(this listing can be found at the top of Talk:Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the concept of this article is stupid. But it really does no harm to Mr. O'Reilly. As you pointed out it is his job to make controversial statements and it is the others' job to criticize him for them. The problem is WP editors who think the mission of an encyclopedia is to carry on political debates when it should be to give people basic facts about a topic.Borock (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ya but its concept is unencyclopedic, WP:NOT, wp:soap DRxAWESOME (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that several of the editors on that article have come to agreement on a new and improved version of the article that addresses many of the concerns listed. Once a final copy-edit takes place it will replace what is there now. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 23:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a fairly obvious POV content fork, which in almost all cases is against policy. We should treat the biography of an individual as a whole, even if it takes up multiple pages, and apply the normal tests of common sense and Wikipedia policy to that whole. In this case, is there anyone even willing to argue that a criticism article longer than the vast majority of BLPs doesn't violate undue weight? Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 00:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would caution anyone against reading the deletion history and thinking that the article had broad consensus. Several of the AfD discussions were dominated by accusations of bad faith rather than honest discussions about the article. There is a definite pattern in the talk page history that anyone opposing of is "against old consensus" or is acting in bad faith. The sourcing in the article is poor, sourced almost entirely as confirmation that the criticism occurred with no reliable sourcing to significance or interpretation (i.e. reliable secondary sources). While I agree that criticism of the subject is well worth covering, the current article is a mockery of the way a controversial subject should be handled. SDY (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The majority of the material appears to concern the TV show rather than the person. Perhspa the best way to handle this would be to move the article to something like "Criticism of The O'Reilly Factor".   Will Beback  talk  00:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I like this idea. Arkon (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be an improvement. The stuff has clearly been moved out of Bill O'Reilly to prevent undue weight, without deleting it. Re-merging the material would re-create the weight problem, unless it could be shortened drastically, which seems unlikely. Renaming is better than nothing. Rd232 ^talk 01:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I and others have listed before, numerous times, why this article passes wikipedia policies, do I need to dig through my posts and post them here numerating WHY they pass wikipedia policy (something about too long on main article=allowed on fork, and others; busy writing 14 essays for school so no time to re-research policiesmuch faster knowing which to look for)? Seriously, this is why I'm against disparate treatment of BLP's, being a BLP does not shield anyone from legitimate criticism. There are TWO full archives of discussion on deletion and numerous deletion debates, ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. This only detracts from the ongoing effort to improve the article which already follow WP:V, WP:NOTE, WP:RS. There is considerable debate and discussion over at talk, why delete the article when it's being worked on?! (btw, the only edits nominator have made are to try and remove the article) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit: Specifically:

• Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise
• WP:Content forking#Article spinouts
• Wikipedia:Content_forking#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV

Summary of rebuttals: Obviously it is longer, if it was shorter, WHY would the article exist? It's sole purpose is to satisfy the middle policy (article spinouts) which does not make it an automatic "POV FORK". As for criticism, do you believe it is possible to report criticism without having criticism in it? If we stripped everything down to be non-offensive (which would be impossible), that would be an non objective coverage of controversy, as you are in essence, saying there is no criticism/controversy. The best possible way to cover it is to be objective. BLP allows this. Quote: "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Wikipedia does not censor, and the article is constantly being revised again and again to try and maintain its adherence to policy, and for the reason it exists by itself, again, the second policy listed above: ARTICLE length. In fact, there has been discussion on the talk page that the article might once revised be nominated for deletion because it would be shortened so that #2 is no longer valid. If it gets there, I'm not opposed to deletion, until though, this is just rehashing previous flawed arguments to delete. This has been said through and through, and I'm only reiterating some of the many things said before. I mean, seriously, how is this much different than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 01:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it appears that this has been brought up before a lot, using that little search thing at the top I found out that this exact article has been brought up here 7 or 8 times, Im going to go through what was said in those discussions to get a better idea of the consensus on this topic. In my opinion though this article does not belong in an encyclopedia. DRxAWESOME (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

also who put spa by my name? DRxAWESOME (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This article clearly violates WP:POVFORK, specifically :

There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but it is a common fault of many articles. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen is a "Praise of..." article was created instead). (emphasis in original)

The article should be about the reception of O'Reilly as a whole, being only about the negative reception of him violates WP:NPOV. The page should be renamed "Public perception of Bill O'Reilly" or something similar and should include both positive and negative aspects. Oren0 (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Troy Davis case

The article Troy Davis case is a very biased article trying to make a claim of innocenece. The article currently does not address any evidence that points to his guilt. May I have a suggestion of what to do? JakeH07 (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to push the fringe theory that Troy Davis is guilty and that the European Parliament, Amnesty International, Desmond Tutu, the Pope and Jimmy Carter are all wrong? Let's not forget that the only open question in this case is whether it is OK for the state to execute a person who is known to be innocent. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing about the case or any fringe theories, but I just looked, and that's a biased article. It reads like a campaign to clear Troy Davies, and to smear Sylvester “Redd” Coles. Given the list of respectable people who feel that there should be a retrial, it would be interesting to read a fair and impartial article giving both sides of the argument. SilkTork *^YES! 18:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to push the "fringe" theory that the Supreme Court and 11th Appeals Court are wrong. Regardless of what the Pope, Jimmy Carter, etc. say, to be honest its not their decision, its that of the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court justices made their decsision. Beyond that, wikipedia must be impartial, and this article simply is not. JakeH07 (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is definitely not written from a neutral point of view, but this is really the wrong place to deal with that. If Troy Davis was libeled by the article, the issue would belong here, but as it is, it belongs at WP:NPOV/N instead. Looie496 (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Martin Sheen

• Martin Sheen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This is a dispute surrounding Sheen's comments which apparently address the issue of 9/11, and are sourced to a YouTube interview of the actor himself. The contentious material and the source. My main concern is context - there has clearly been some editing out done between the question asked by the interviewer and the statement made by Sheen, which could distort the context and very meaning of his comments. I don't think we can include this content without reliable sources - it is clearly a contentious statement, and assertion for us to make. I'd appreciate the input from experienced, level heads. Regards, – Toon^(talk) 23:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

We should report what reliable sources say about the subject. If no other source has noted this, then it should not be included. Kevin (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Liam Mooney

Liam Mooney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Bio on a former Student President. Seems to be mainly written by one editor, and bases most claims (especially negative ones) on a single source, a student newspaper. This was already brought up at the CWNB, but I thought this is more relevant]. --Rob (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe this hasn't been through AfD yet. Student council politics is not real politics; people don't get notability for being student body president at their university, no matter what university it is. As far as I can tell, all his big accomplishments have to do with things of extremely local interests: rulings on who can participate in field day (oh boy) and creating five new student jobs (oh man, five!). I'm sure he's an important figure in the Trent University community, but I don't see how this possibly can meet the general notability guidelines; I can't even make my mind over whether or not the article was intended as a joke. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow indeed. Speedy delete because not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't speedy it because it at least makes a claim (albeit a ridiculous one) of being notable. But an AfD definitely needs to be started (although Thivierr, at the other noticeboard, has suggested that he thinks the article would survive an AfD...I'm not so sure). Any objections? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I made that comment, based on my experience, but I'm hoping I'm wrong, and decided to just now nominate it for deletion. --Rob (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Student politicians are not inherently notable, but could be notable if they enjoy sufficient independent coverage in reliable sources. 90% of the sources in this article are student media or a facebook group. The question is whether the mainstream media sources (three mentions in the local paper, one indirect mention in a blog of Canada's main newsweekly) constitute significant coverage. I wouldn't think so, but I've seen AfDs fail with less coverage. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Fred Goodwin

"disgraced" is in the lead. Right or wrong? Kittybrewster ☎ 20:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Absotively posilutely wrong. I removed it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I like that word. a lot. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Syring

An ip editor who may be the subject of the article has been active on the article for a while. Recently he's been updating the article to say that his community service has been completed. I reverted, since the source doesn't say that. But I sense a long term slow motion edit war in the making. And I don't really want to engage. Perhaps the article could just use some help from someone who is more conversant with BLP. Help or comments appreciated. Dlabtot (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it - already reverted an unsourced IP edit. – ukexpat (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC on name in lede of Gene Robinson

Talk: Gene Robinson#RfC: Is adding Robinson's legal name of Vicky Gene instead of V. Gene approprite for the lede of this BLP?

Your input is welcome. -- Banjeboi 03:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Daniella Rush (second listing)

Resolved

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

(copy from previous listing)

I come to seek guidance. I've added information with 2 sources, which User:Morbidthoughts undid. Then I added 2 other sources (none of the total of 4 sources was a Wikipedia mirror), and he again undid. He claims of my talk page User_talk:Debresser#Daniella_Rush that all 4 sources are unreliable. What is your opinion? Debresser (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If you get no answers here, you also have the option of consulting with the reliable sources noticeboard about the reliability of each source outside the context of the Daniella Rush article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll consider that if no reactions will be forthcomming here in the next day or so. Debresser (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Morbidthoughts on this one. We can reasonably assume that the real name of a porn star who acts under a pseudonym is information that requires both reliable sourcing and a sound argument for inclusion. IMBD and realname.of fail the first requirement, and no argument that the real name is relevant has been made. Keep in mind that the mere existence of information isn't enough to justify inclusion. Avruch ^T 16:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(Continuation)

Thank you for your reaction. I argumented on my talk page that her real name can be found on quite a few webpages and forums. Also, she has left the pornographic industry some years ago (due to a car accident). For these two reasons I see no reason not to include her real name.

What is your opinion about the other two sources I brought? Debresser (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources you've added meet our reliable sources standards. Morbidthoughts actions are correct here. Exxolon (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Morbidthoughts, Exxolon, and Avruch. None of those sources are reliable to cite something as important as a name on a BLP. Sometimes porn actors use a pseudonym to maintain their privacy and do not want it included. For that reason, our sources have to be impeccable for us to include a real name. The sources you added are not reliable since there is no indication that fact checking is done like a publisher would do. That she left the industry weighs for keeping it out more than including it, I think, since she no longer works in the industry and no indication that she ever decided to use her real name for porn film work. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you . I will consider this question resolved. Debresser (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hakan Yalincak article issues

This was tagged by an anon for speedy deletion as an attack page with the in text comment "subject of article is editing and making changes that make disparaging comments about those allegedly involved in his own legal issues. content violates court ordered agreements." I've blanked and protected all but the lead which was cleaned up by User:DGG. SPA's-- Special:Contributions/Downeyscan, Special:Contributions/64.52.49.34, Special:Contributions/MediaTruthTracker, allegedly the subject-- Special:Contributions/Hakanyalincak. The article was stable till this series of edits-- by Hakanyalincak. Then came the three SPA's.] I'm all for deleting it in it's entirety for the sake of human dignity, but it's a long standing article with sources and he may be notable. What's your pleasure? Dlohcierekim 23:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there an event we can merge him to? The "multi-million dollar hedge fund fraud and Ponzi scheme" that the article links him to might be notable in itself. In that case as a BLP1E he should be merged in with that article. Per this source her mother also appears connected with the event. While I don't think either of them should have an article about themselves, their mention in an article about the Ponzi scheme would be appropriate if the scheme itself was notable. ThemFromSpace 23:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is there seems to have been several different frauds; and the major one (the hedge fund) was relatively low value ($7m). [13] Tricky. We could try moving/merging to Yalincak hedge fund scam or something. Rd232 ^talk 01:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I like that idea. The article before Dlohcierekim removed most of it seemed to have lots of sensitive content (about his mental health, hospitalization, etc.), and as far as I can tell the individual is not very notable anyway. Making the article be about the incident instead would satisfy notability concerns and maybe ward off people who would otherwise be putting sensitive BLP stuff in there. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please hide this vandalism edit and then delete my link if necessary

Please delete. JustGettingItRight (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)