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.

Ronald F. Maxwell

Resolved

 – As the section in question was irrelevant to Maxwell's career, I've removed it. ceranthor 19:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of Anti-Hispanic views against Ronald F. Maxwell, with bolded rebuttal. (Wasn't me - All I wanted to do was categorize him as being a person from Clifton, New Jersey.) KConWiki (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe he really does hold certain views along those lines. In any event, I want to invite multiple sets of eyes to review that page. KConWiki (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly, neither of those sources appear reliable. I've done some more searching around with this one and found this article from the Huffington Post. Interestingly enough, Maxwell does seem to support strict border control. What's in the article is definitely a stretch, though, as far as I can see. In the HP article, Maxwell appears to have similar beliefs. "[...] we must create the conditions, humane and non-coercive to be sure, to respectfully permit the millions of illegal aliens already here to re-patriate, to gradually find their way back to their own native countries, to their own ancestral homes, to their own special corner of the earth, under their own set of stars -- reunited with their own families -- with our financial assistance, with our understanding, and yes, with our love." ceranthor 18:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as this is irrelevant to the article, really, I'm going to remove that portion. ceranthor 18:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Dpyb and autobiography found by aosasti

• Article about Canadian poet Dionne Brand seems to be in violation of conflict of interest since it seems it is being entirely edited by the author herself or users with few other contributions to Wikipedia.

• Dionne Brand

Christine O'Donnell

Resolved

 – Article seems to be quiet now, with an acceptable text to all based on good sources. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Christine O'Donnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - attempt to insert negative material based on a WP:PRIMARY source backed by a non-WP:RS blog source. An IP user, so far using 128.175.100.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 128.175.100.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has re-inserted the material at least four times, with myself and another editor trying to explain on the talk page why the material needs stronger sourcing than has been provided so far. I don't want to get caught in an edit war, I turn this matter over to you guys. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Update – this issue is now moot. This solid, mainstream newspaper source — Gibson, Ginger (2010-03-20). "Delaware politics: O'Donnell faces campaign debt, back-tax issues". The News Journal. Wilmington. Retrieved 2010-03-25. — now covers the material in question, and the article is being updated to reflect that. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source issue on Tucker Max

The website, www.quotabletuckermax.com, is being used as a source on this BLP article three times (sources #37, #38 and #39), and is being used as conjecture on the talk page [1]. I have already posted my doubts that this is an adequate source for BLP articles on the Reliable Source noticeboard [2], but the only person who commented there was the same person who has been using the website as a source for the article.

As the website is devoted entirely to holding Max up as a subject of mockery, it is my understanding of wikipedia policy that it shouldn't be discussed on the article talk page [3], let alone in the article itself. Seth Kellerman (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say that site http://www.quotabletuckermax.com is not a reliable source for content in T Max's BLP. and that they should be removed. Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This one needs more eyes. User:Theserialcomma is revert warring to keep the unreliable source in the article. Seth Kellerman (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Oliverio II --- campaign worker again removing accurate and sourced information

Michael Oliverio II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Wilkerson_cl keeps removing accurate and sourced information from the Michael Oliverio II entry. CL Wilkerson is Curtis L. Wilkerson who is a known operative and employee for Oliverio's campaign. I have warned this user, and I am documenting these incidents on this page to alert others on Wikipedia. 24.3.220.206 (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

See: "According to TSG's Web site, Wilkerson's success rate is more than 84 percent with his clients, including Sens. Truman Chafin, Mike Oliverio and Evan Jenkins." <http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/charleston-daily-mail/mi_8044/is_20060925/callaghan-manage-campaign/ai_n46272535/> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.220.206 (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Wilkerson_cl did it again! I request that his editing privileges be blocked for violating policy after having been warned. I have restored the deleted sections again. 24.3.220.206 (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Have requested editor assistance (Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Michael_Oliverio_II_---_campaign_associate_continues_to_remove_sourced_information) on how to resolve this conflict. 24.3.220.206 (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Tampering with Wikipedia

In March of 2010, the fact that this Wikipedia article had been edited by Oliverio campaign manager Curtis Wilkerson (who edited openly in his own name) was the subject of a report in the Charleston Daily Mail. An Oliverio spokesman argued that the material they had removed (about Oliverio being praised by President Bush, and about Oliverio's role in the ALEC), while admittedly true, gave a misleading impression of Oliverio's political history.

This isn't just accusations, this is an open admission of what they did. Since the Oliverio campaign guy has admitted that they were the ones doing the COI edits, would somebody take a look at whether the editor in question should be blocked for his history of COI edits? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Jim Hawkins; Twitter

Some editors would like to include the day and month of this broadcaster's birth. The information is sourced to responses to and from his twitter account on and around his birthday. See the logic here. The Twitter account is not officially verified but is linked to from his BBC homepage suggesting it is legitimate.

Background: when in the past, the month and day was deduced based on a comment that his birthday was the first day of Lent of a particular year, the subject complained via OTRS and the information was removed.[4]

Hawkins (via an IP) has apparently objected again to the inclusion of his date of birth in the article.[5]"It's none of your business" "Just delete the bloody thing and mind your own business". Unfortunately, he has also encouraged his twitter followers to vandalize the article, so it has been semi-protected.

Hawkins has never officially stated his day/month of birth in reliable sources (he has twice referred to the year, however). In any case, Twitter is hardly the best source, in my view. I think BLP policy is clear that if "if the subject complains, err on the side of caution and simply list the year", but other editors disagree. I would be glad of the opinions of other editors about this matter. --Slp1 (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

He has revealed the date, more than once, on his publicly-available Twitter account. This is a reliable source, and that has been explained to you already, on the article talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I realize that this is your opinion, and indeed have included a link to your explanations in the first paragraph. The point here is to get the views of others interested and experienced with BLP matters, including appropriate sourcing/OR for these kinds of articles.--Slp1 (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not merely my opinion - it's fact, supported by Wikipedia policy. Your bald claim that "Hawkins has never officially stated his day/month of birth in reliable sources" is false. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Really? Where has Hawkins (or any other source) officially given his full birthdate? Where has he or anybody else said "My birthdate is xxxx". Anyway, all of this ignores the fact that BLP policy (which cannot trumped by any other policy/guideline) clearly and directly states that we should omit the date/month in cases where the subject objects. Hawkins has. --Slp1 (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Not quite true, the policy states the we should omit this info where the subject objects to it being published, it does not say that we should omit the info where the subject objects to it being published on Wikipedia. The twitter account clearly meets WP:SPS, and thus the actual day and month of birth, as posted by the subject of the article himself, is verifiable. Mjroots (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:DOB. "if the subject complains, err on the side of caution and simply list the year" This is the exact quote from our BLP policy; it specifically does say we should omit in a situation like this, where the subject has complained about the inclusion on WP. --Slp1 (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The way that the quoted policy reads, is that if the subject objects to the info being published at all, but it is published anyway, then Wikipedia should defer to the subjects wishes. This is not the case. The subject of the article wants to control what is and isn't written about them on Wikipedia. This is the real issue here. Does Wikipedial allow a BLP to dictate to Wikipedia what can and can't be written on Wikipedia about them, or does Wikipedia stick by its guns and say, that info is in the public domain, it is verfifable and sourced, so therefore we should (and will) include it. Mjroots (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:DOB also states "Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known persons where the dates:

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

Which is the case here. Mjroots (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) You are right that generally the subject does not get to control WP content. This is an exception, however, and I think you are misreading the policy. There are no qualifiers to the instructions about deferring to a subject's wishes about the inclusion the full date of birth, which is written in the context of privacy issues. I also think that you are putting a lot of faith in a series of tweets, none of which actually say "my birthdate is XXXX." --Slp1 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No; the exact quote is "Caution should be exercised with less notable people. With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains, err on the side of caution and simply list the year". Nether notability (already established) nor privacy (the subject has willingly put the data into the public arena) is an issue here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The important point is that you are failing to address is "If the subject complains". He has.--Slp1 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That's in the context of "less notable people" who "regard their dates of birth as private". Neither applies here, as shown. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There's an important "or" in there; "When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains". Both criteria are not required; in any case a quick look at the AFDs will show, that for many editors, his notability is in doubt[6][7]. --Slp1 (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Either or both clauses are still in the context of "less notable people" who "regard their dates of birth as private". Notability in this case has been extablished, as the AFDs show. Privacy is not an issue, as Hawkin's own publication of the date shows. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, really. Hawkins has used his own, publicly-available Twitter account to say, on 1 March, "today is my birthday". You removed the citations showing this form the article. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

dif please, with this exact phrasing.--Slp1 (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This Twitter post made on 1 March 2010, contains the phrase "Thank you for all the lovely happy-birthday tweets". This Twitter post also on 1 March 2010 states "Hooray for birthdays!", thus establishing that 1 March is JHs birthday. It is already verified and not disputed that he was born in 1962. Mjroots (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

None of those say "today is my birthday" or "my birthday is March 1st", do they? That's what I asked for, in response to Andy's claim above. You are (probably correctly) deducing that March 1st is the day, but maybe he was thanking people the day after his birthday and celebrating then too. Unlikely perhaps, but without a definite statement from Hawkins or another source, this simply isn't good enough. But once again this is almost moot, as BLP requires us to err on the side of caution by not including day/month info where the subject objects. --Slp1 (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Why would he thank twitterers for the happy birthday tweets if it wasn't his birthday? If they'd got the date wrong wouldn't the likely response be "Thanks, but my birthday is on...". This Twitter post made on 2 March 2010 also references his birthday the previous day with the comment "didn't celebrate birthday with junk food orgy!" I think the evidence is clear enough in this case. Mjroots (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are misinterpreting the objection. The subject of the BLP does not object the his birthday being published. If he did so, then I would support keeping it off Wikipedia. The subject of the BLP only objects to the info being on Wikipedia, he is quite happy for it to be plastered across the internet elsewhere, and has published the info himself. The bigger question (above) is the one that really needs to be addressed. Mjroots (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is absolutely no evidence that Hawkins has "plastered his birthdate across the internet". A few ambiguous tweets don't cut it. And yes, even so, our BLP policy does allow subjects input about what is in their WP bio with regard to the month/date info, the first google hit for most people. If you don't agree with the policy, that's fine, but you need to try to change it. And that can't be done here. This is my last post here, and I hope others will weigh in. In the meantime, I will re add the year of birth since that seems well-sourced and appropriate per BLP policy. --Slp1 (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

there is no ambiguity to the tweets,. Please stop making misleading claims. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Please cite the policy requiring the exact wording you now insist on. Or stop inventing rules. Hawkins has publicly said on 1st March, that that day was his birthday. What part of "you removed the citations showing this from the article" did you miss? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No answer? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The Big Question

The real issue here is not the inclusion or omission of JH's date of birth; it is the issue of control. It is whether or not Wikipedia allows living people who are Wiki-notable to dictate what is and is not said about them, or whether Wikipedia stands up to these people and says "as long as our policies are adhered to, we will publish what is deemed to be suitable per consensus of Wikipedia editors", as I originally asked above.

No we don't want to go down that road of allowing subjects to control their content by tweeting in uncomfirmed accouts and we need to avoid the idea that just because we don't have a birth date that that is some kind of problem, it is not, just leave it out. Twitter is not by its very nature a reliable source and asserting that it is imo is a lowering of verifiability standards. Celebriwiki Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In this case, there is no doubt as to the ownership of the twitter account, which therefore meets WP:SPS. Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

He's a big supporter of twitter, the fact that he has to announce his birthdate on twitter in an attempt to correct them on wikipedia is a joke, any links to twitter is a degrading of what wikpedia claims to be, accepting that this twit is acceptable asserts they are all reliable, perhaps it is me that is in the wrong place. Off2riorob (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No assertation is made that all twitter posts are reliable. We are specifically addressing this particular case on this particular article and none other than that. I take it that by "twit" you mean the post and not the poster. Mjroots (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps you are. Can you provide a citation for your assertion that he was making an "attempt to correct them on wikipedia"? Meanwhile, Twitter accounts which are provably owned and controlled by a person are perfectly acceptable as sources for things said by that person. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No they are not at all they are worthless and should never be linked to, if I find a twitter lnk I remove it immediately. This particular case is a joke, do you think that his birthday is some kind of fantastic educational content and we have to add this tweet as a reliable claim because we just have to know what is the exact birth date of this minor radio person, wikipedia is lost. Off2riorob (talk)

Policy says such links are acceptable. Feel free to lobby to change it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed only, twitter accounts can be verified like our OTRS system..Almost no twitter acounts are verified. Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hawkin's Twitter account is linked to from his own page on the BBC website. No greater confirmation can exist, or be required. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't care less if his twirter account is tatooed on his arm, linking to his tweet that he claims to be his birthday as a reliable place to find out or report his birth-date from is imo valueless and detrimental to the quality of the wikipedia. Supporting this as a reliable citation asserts that all tweets will have a discussion like this, johnny has tweeted on his twitter that he was born in Texas not California and it is clearly him, big discussion and change to johnny was born in California, laughable, johnny who is 24 was born in California (cited to johnny on twitter).Off2riorob (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's your opinion. It's not WP policy; like said: feel free to lobby to change it. And your latter point is false logic. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob, as was discussed in the last round of arguing only a few days ago, Twitter's beta 'verified account' program is not the only acceptable method of determining the ownership of an account. Insisting that the only verifiable accounts are those that have that spottily implemented feature, which is used only in cases where there have already been problems with impersonation (and sometimes not even then), is pointless and counterproductive. If an account's ownership can be reliably sourced it doesn't matter if it's twitter-verified or not. Your opinion that Twitter is 'worthless' as a source is not supported by policy, and your apparent insistence that because people can post lies on Twitter the entire service is unreliable is fallacious. Yes, people can lie. They can do it anywhere. That's why we have carefully written rules on when and how to use a self-published source. As long as those are followed, there's no danger of falling down any slippery slopes. The question here is not whether the account is verifiably his - it obviously is - but whether the information can or should be used when the marginally-notable subject apparently objects to it. -- Vary | (Talk) 05:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The subject of the article is more than marginally notable. He has presented a show on a national radio station in the UK, and won a major national music award. I'd say that "moderately notable" would be a better description. Mjroots (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, he is not at all well known in the United Kingdon, his viewing figures suggest that without this internal discussion, there is only bots and a couple of family and friends viewing his wiki article. Off2riorob (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Our internal stats can determine friend-and-family relations? Whoo! Which way's Signpost - we really should be shouting about this innovative AI development. Also, please could you point to the apparently-new policy, that viewings stats should determine article content? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

There being no further responses I propose that we reinstate the full DoB to the article. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This is where all this is leading, desired addition to Lady ga ga tonight.. I am just wondering, do you support this addition? Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

On March 28, 2010, Lady GaGa chatted in a cbox on one of her fan sites, GaGaDaily. She announced that she had already written the first single off of her new album http://gagadaily.com/2010/03/lady-gaga-in-the-gagadaily-chat-box/. She said will be "the greatest of her career" it's "an anthem to our generation." She also revealed that she will announce it's title on that fansite. She later confirmed it was relly her on her Twitter page http://twitter.com/ladygaga/status/11220130969 .

Utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It is relevent, it is exactly what you are supporting and encouraging, it is the wikipedia that you support, self certification and promotion by subjects through their twitter account using the wikipedia to publish it. So, no I don't support it at all.Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I support the proposal, with the proviso that if a better source can be found, then that source should be used instead. It has been adequately established above and elsewhere that the twitter account is JH's, and therefore can be used per WP:SPS. Mjroots2 (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No. There is no consensus for the inclusion of the full date of birth either here or at the talkpage of the article. The same two editors Mjroots and Pigsonthewing have been arguing vociferously for inclusion here and elsewhere and have received zero support, while 4 editors have opposed it for various reasons (Off2riorob, me, and Jonathunder and Mattgirling). More importantly, since no local consensus can overturn BLP policy, I'll also point out once again that the proposed edit would violate our BLP policy (which has been recently clarified), which unambiguously states that "Where the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth...err on the side of caution and simply list the year." Hawkins has complained [8][9]. It's not going to happen. --Slp1 (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

SLP1, you still misrepresent the policy. The subject does not object to his DoB being published. He has even published it himself. He only objects to it being on Wikipedia and that is because he objects to the very existence of the article. He is still trying to control his article, which is the one thing that is not going to happen. Mjroots2 (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not misrepresented policy. I may understand and interpret it differently than you do, but that's a very different matter. Please be careful with your claims.

Note that the BLP policy, in the context of privacy of living persons on WP says, "where the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth" ie inclusion on WP. There is no expectation that he must "object to it being published" anywhere/everywhere as you suggest. [I'd also, as you know, disagree that he has ever in any real/direct way published the day/month, but that's beside the point here]

I realize that you are concerned about Hawkins controlling the article. If I saw signs of that I would support actions to prevent it. But that is not what has happened here: the subject has objected to the inclusion of his full date of birth on WP (twice, 6 months apart, with peace in between). BLP policy accepts that the inclusion of this material may be considered a breach of his privacy. Hawkins is within his rights to complain to WP about it, and as he has we are obliged by policy to respect his wishes. --Slp1 (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This thread seems to have considerable tendentious argumentation by Andy Mabett and Mjroots2. The date should be removed unless there's a definite reason to include it, i.e. it's inextricably connected with some well-documented incident of encyclopedic notability. A made-up example might be if Hawkins ran for president of the USA and there was a Supreme Court case about whether he was old enough to take office, because his 35th birthday fell on inauguration day. That would make his birthday notable. The operative words from WP:DOB are "widely published by reliable sources", which doesn't mean a few twitter posts. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

As has been shown by WP:SPS, the source is useable, although I do recognise that a better source should be used if one can be found. For the moment, the Twitter post is the best available source. This is a difference of opinion over interpretation of policy, that's all. You'll notice that there has been no disruptive editing of the article while the discussion has been going on - no repeated insertion / deletion of the DoB. It looks like we'll have to find a much better source, then the issue can be addressed again. As has been made clear, JH does not object to his DoB being published. His objection lies with having an article on Wikipedia at all. He claims there are inacurracies in the article, but won't say what they are or provide proof of what they are. I don't want the article to be wrong in any details, but we can only work with what the sources say. The best we can hope to do here is ensure that WP:BLP and WP:V are adhered to. Mjroots (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Plasmatics

Resolved

 – Not about a living person, and easily sourced. Remaining discussion can continue on the article talk page. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Plasmatics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article is not written conservatively and with regard for the subject's (band member's) privacy. At least two band members are explicitly named, followed by characteractizations that disparage the persons. The introduction, and sections of the article are sensationalistic in tone regarding the exploits, actions, and legal troubles of named band members, see:WP:BLP. The article is under- sourced. There are multiples of unsourced statements throughout the article, that amount to titillating claims about individual band member's lives. Looking at the article's revision history I notice that some of the material has been challenged in the past, and a meager source, represenative of perhaps only one or two sentences would be added for remedy. The unsourced material is out of proportion to the unrepresenative references provided. It appears the editors are unaware of BLP policies, when I assume good faith. However, this article appears to have been written in an irresponsible manner, which is in conflict with BLP policies, see:WP:BLP. It does not fall under "Criticism and praise" see WP:BLP I am removing contentious material and adding a speedy delete tag. // Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 05:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

After removing the sensational material, the rest of the article appears OK. However, it appears that most of the material is not cited or referenced. Two templates regarding this issue and POV have been affixed to the article for some time. I believe the removed contentious material should not be restored unless its tone can be monitored. I see the major issue with this article is the tendency toward titillation, along with insentive characterizations and statements. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 06:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The article was indeed a mess, and it is now rather less of a mess. However, your main bunch of changes (here) shows what seems to me a mixture of good changes and dubious ones. Some of what you cut hardly seems damaging; or if it's damaging, it's damaging to the halfwits who were (or pretended to be) so offended by the Plasmatics' antics and then beat them up. (Yes, it's mostly unsourced. But so is most of what you leav in.) You get SGML comment syntax wrong in places and do things resulting in other oddities. I suggest that you reexamine your changes and revise some of them. -- Hoary (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll fix the SGML. In regards to the other edits, I will let the Admin board here decide or the discussion that ensues decide. Technically, any material that is biographical and unsourced can be removed, and this is especially true with BLPs. So really if its not sourced it can be considered contentious. However, I just chose anything that might put the band members in a bad light, since appearently most of them are living. There is concern also for the people that are in their life - families and friends WP:BLP. Anyway, in this instance, I am just relying on what I consider to be disparaging information. Can it be more neutrally worded, etc., etc. ? Thanks for your input Hoary. ----Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a punk band so there will be some rebel type content, it could use a music fan and a few more citations. I have not had a look at the removals but Steve's comments seem on the right track, although speedy delete request is a bit much, it has been removed, imo the article is worthwhile but needs improvement, they look more or less notable to me After a search any controversial content that appears uncitable can be moved to the talkpage for consideration or deletion, anything run of the mill can imo be left and tagged as requiring more citations and at least the job is started. Off2riorob (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Holy shit - what a fucking mess. Try reading the article now. There are many things that simply don't make sense because chunks of text were just deleted without regard to sentences that follow. There wasn't that much contentious content. The Plasmatics did use shotguns and chainsaws in concerts. They did blow up cars both at shows and on TV. Wendy did cover her nipples with electrical tape. How is any of that disparaging? Sean Echevarria (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

So go find a citation and put it back. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean this to come over as rude as it does. Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, but this is frankly bizarre. Deleting material relating to a band's theatrical stageshow - which will be well known to anyone with a passing familiarity with the band in question - and then posting on the BLP board about it? Saying that they blew stuff up on stage or wielded chainsaws is neither a BLP violation in respect of the members who are still alive, nor even vaguely "controversial" - either in the sense that it is damaging to them or "disparaging" in any way whatsoever, or that it might possibly be untrue. Ideally yes, the information and the specifics involved should have sources. But we don't need to source every detail on every page, nor does broadly accurate and relevant content necessarily need to be deleted while we wait for those sources. N-HH talk/edits 21:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does look a bit conflicted or involved, I wouldn't object to reverting back to the previous content if someone was going to work on it, the lead singer that most of the removed content was about has been dead ten years. Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The very start of Allmusic's history of the Plasmatics says: "At a time (the late '70s and early '80s) and a place (the New York punk scene) where shocking the audience was often the order of the day, few bands had a greater gift for cultivating outrage than the Plasmatics. During the group's heyday, a Plasmatics show could include anything from lead singer Wendy O. Williams covered in shaving cream and electrical tape while brandishing a chain saw as blue-haired Richie Stotts attacked his guitar in drag, to the destruction of televisions, electric guitars, automobiles, and other consumer goods." To keep this out of the article on BLP grounds is, as the above poster states, truly bizarre. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Shall we revert it back and leave a comment to the removing account to discuss any issues they have on the article talkpage previous to removal. Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

First, using "Holy S--- what a f----g mess" - as the first excited expression as a response to this complaint pretty much expresses the tone of the removed material, and expresses how certain editors view how to write this article. I wrote above the major issue with this article is it has a tendency toward sensationlism, and tittilation, and in other words is unencyclopedic and lacks a nuetral point of view. Using "Holy S---" and "f----g mess" are sensationalist remarks and this is also the editor who is "restoring" the article. In addition, there is the insentive characterizations and statements. Especially, Wendy's passing could have been handled with more tact. Just because this is an article about a punk rock band doesn't mean it is supposed to flout Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also, there is the fact that there is a lot of biographical information in the article that is unsourced that does not include the contentious material. And finally, although Wendy has passed on she was part of a band who has members that are still living and her former behavior in the band reflects on them. I noted this in the revision history. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Steve but no one agrees with you. Off2riorob (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, I was trying to add the following below, but apparently there was an edit conflict. Here it is anyway:

The sensationalistic and tittlitating material is now being restored word for word (or almost word for word). Specifically, the editor who opens responses with "Holy S--- what a f----g mess" has restored the following material. Here are the diffs: [10], [11], [12], [13]. This is all salacious material. The section title here: [14] and this section title [15] are designed for sensationalism and are salacious. The tone of these diffs are unecyclopedic and they lack a nuetral point of view. This flouts Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I can link specific policies and guidelines here if I need to. In any case, it won't be long before I reccomend this article for WP:Afd. The article is about a punk rock band, it is not the punk rock band itself. In other words it is a Wikipedia article. There should be a clear distinction. ----Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Steve, you should take your issues to the talkpage for discussion, there was no support here for your removal of that content. Off2riorob (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you are correct Off2riorob. I didn't see this before, but perhaps the best thing to do is get involved in the editing process of the article. Thanks for the tip. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Another tip btw - you're probably better off steering clear of the GG Allin page, or at least covering your eyes if you come across it. N-HH talk/edits 12:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Vijay Eswaran entry not significant for wikipedia

Vijay Eswaran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This aricle about Vijay Eswaran is not significant, it has to be deleted [[User talk:R.srinivaas ]] (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• The article looks totally alright to me, he seems notable enough, it could use some internal links and the citations working on and expanding, if anyone wants a little job. Off2riorob (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

 by an IP and me

• • i have created an article Thorogood (but it was deleted) which according to me is more notable than Vijay Eswaran , on what basis you are saying he is notable (i do understand wikipedia has guideline for this ) just beacuse some has added some content and has referred links (those are from the website the person created for himself) does not make him notable, his company Qi Group is allgedly involved fraud in India , Srilanka, Nepal .  ?

--[[User talk:R.srinivaas ]] (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

He looks notable enough to me, there are links to company and personal sites but there are also links to global independent publications, imo enough coverage to assert notability, if you feel this way still you could nominate the article for deletion and open a Wikipedia:AfD discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Carrie Prejean

There's currently some discussion about various issues with this article (which has been a frequent topic to this noticeboard). It already has a fair amount of attention so not that important for people here to intervene but thought I'd note it in case people are interested anyway Nil Einne (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Pillsbury

Someone just posted asking for some help with this politician/bureaucrat's bio to WP:3O, which is how I noticed it, but it seems to me that it probably requires some more attention than that. It appears to have been under dispute for some time, including possibly involving editing by the subject of the article itself. It needs some more eyes who are experienced with BLP issues than it'll get at 3O, I think. — e. ripley\^talk 22:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Gerry Adams, Jean McConville, Brendan Hughes and Ed Moloney

There has been a long standing agreement that Gerry Adams alleged IRA membership is covered briefly, since he has described claims he was in the IRA (specifically ones by Ed Moloney) as libelous and has never been convicted of the offence, and was in fact acquitted when tried for it in 1978. A great many things have been alleged about him by many sources, but the agreement still stands that we do not include a lengthy "rap sheet" of offences he has not even been charged with. Ed Moloney's new book includes the allegation that Gerry Adams planned the kidnapping and execution of informer Jean McConville. He has not been charged with this offence, he has not been convicted of the offence, it is an incredibly serious accusation by Ed Moloney. Gerry Adams has said that Moloney's claim he was even in the IRA is libelous, this is obviously way beyond that. This is not even a new accusation from Moloney, his earlier work that Adams described as libelous contains "Whether, as alleged by one well-informed source, or not the order was given by Adams, it is inconceivable that such an order would have been issues without his knowledge" about her kidnapping and execution, amongst several pages of detail about the incident. O Fenian (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have commented at the "Talk" for Gerry Adams how important it is that this discussion atracts new input and is not swarmed by existing editors with their known positions. However, it is important there be a second statement with arguments for inclusion of this matter.

Such a statement might start with this, a Google News Search now showing 184 news articles refering to, if not repeating the allegation. At this precise moment, that chapter opens with "'I'm suing Adams for the truth -- it is not about money' - Irish Independent - Sam Smyth - ‎4 hours ago‎ - Helen McKendry, daughter of Jean McConville, whose murder was allegedly ordered by Gerry Adams, according to a new book. ... ".

It might also be useful to note that there are two allegations about Adams and the IRA. In 2002, Moloneys book alleged the same as others have done, that Adams was in the IRA. This first allegation is in the article. For some reason, the second allegation made by Moloney in 2002 (involvement in the killing of McConville) has not been allowed into the article, and this is the point at issue. In 2002 Gerry Adams said he was consulting legal advice on whether either allegation was libellous. We have no information on what advice he received from his solicitors. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that should be "alleged informer Jean McConville" in your paragraph above, O Fenian? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sean Wallace

Resolved

 – reviewed and improved

The article on this person appears to be written by himself. My understanding is that this is not permitted. --SamanthaChambers1966 (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Samantha. Welome to the site.

It is permitted, though it is discouraged. The reason for the preference others author them is that it's difficult to write about oneself dispassionately, free from bias. It is possible.

For a quick example of the issues involved you might like to read my somewhat scrappy comment at the bottom of this deletion debate. The subject is in a different professional field, but the same concern was at hand. There're a lot of jargon acronyms there for somebody new, though you should be able to get the gist.

Although the subject of this article created it, in 2006, he's only edited it 3 times and about a third of the brief article's content has been added by others. A main concern in such cases is the notability – in Wikipedia terms, of the subject. That broadly means sufficient independent reliable published sources that cover them in some depth exist, perhaps they've won notable awards, etc.

The references at the bottom of this article show this individual has won awards significant enough to have their own Wikipedia articles (even I've heard of one) and he's mentioned in the list of winners in the respective article on here (not added by himself!).

The article needs a little attention for such things as encyclopedic tone, and style, but is broadly fine. I'll try to do some work on it soon. Thanks. –Whitehorse1 23:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've built on your good work, tidying and expanding it a little. –Whitehorse1 23:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Great job. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well done. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hutaree

Please check this out. I think the list of arrested suspects is not quite in line with WP policy.Steve Dufour (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we add pictures or names of suspects usually, we definitely don't if they are children, anyone know of any previous similar situations? Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Re pictures: The policy area dealing with photographs like this is WP:MUG: "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed.". None of the persons depicted are minors. The image description shows it's provided to the media by the U.S. Marshals Service, via AP (presumably Associated Press; generally a reliable source). The page history shows the picture, which is on Commons, has been renamed to make clear they are charged, not convicted. The photo appears within a section titled "Criminal investigation", which details the charges on which they were indicted by the U.S. Attorney. No disparity between the text and image nor placement of the image to falsely assert by implication is evident. –Whitehorse1 18:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Gerry Adams

Can we have a neutral editor or two take a look at a recent issue on the above. A recent accusation that Adams was a member of the IRA has just become a news item. The general accusation is an old one and has always been denied. The new accusation is a report in a book. It needs some people who understand BLP policy who have no issue at stake in Troubles articles which are under arbcom restrictions. Thanks --Snowded ^TALK 13:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I posted something there on the article talk page (clarified). 66.127.52.47 (talk) 12:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The IRA allegations have come and gone for decades. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

it is also written quite neutrally and not really excessively written and well cited. Off2riorob (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I see now that there is another thread further up, and that the new allegation is that Adams was involved in the death of Jean McConville. This claim appears in a new book by Ed Moloney, who sources it to a posthumously-released interview with an IRA member who died in 2008.[16] The claim is questioned in part because the main witness is deceased and can't provide further corroboration. There is substantial international press commentary on the book,[17] enough that Wikipedia should include a summary of the issue, probably in the article about McConville rather than in Adams' biography. McConville's daughter has a lawsuit pending against Adams, already mentioned in the McConville article. If the lawsuit makes progress and attaches more attention directly to Adams, it may become appropriate to describe it in Adams' biography as well, but it appears still in an early stage. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark Thorburn

Resolved

 – IP blocked and semiprotected. Thanks OrangeMike and Off2riorob for your input.Vl'hurg ^talk 18:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark Thorburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I need advice or intervention from more experienced wiki editors please; a user editing from various IPs (quite possibly the subject of the article) is reverting my edits, citing 'pending legal proceedings'. Have read WP:BLP but still unsure of the correct action to take. // Vl'hurg ^talk 17:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

He is not really very notable is he, I did a search, is this very minor incident reported in more that that Sun paper? Have the radio station announced anything about it? that they sacked him for this email? I have nominated the picture for deletion as it is to be found at other locations on the web and there is no evidence of permission. Off2riorob (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not found anything from the radio station. I don't think there's much other coverage to be found other than the linked articles. I just get the feeling that someone is trying to introduce some bias by removing the negative aspects (which are relevant to the article in my opinion). Vl'hurg ^talk 18:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

He is almost unworthy of a article, a minor local news scandal about a person of little actual notability, named and shamed on the globally published wikipedia is a bit much imo. Wikipedia should not be the main distributor of such content about people of minor notability, are there any more citations about him, or has this email thing more in any other publications, perhaps a major nationwide publication? Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

User:OrangeMike has inserted the content, blocked the IP for a week, citing no legal threats and semi protected the article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Levi Bellfield

• Levi Bellfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Not sure what Wikipedia policy is as I know the page is hosted outside UK jurisdiction, but this page would be considered in contempt of court in the UK as it talks about Bellfield's prior offences while he is being prosecuted for other crimes; as demonstrated here British media cannot discuss his criminal history. Stu.W UK (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Good thing we're not hosted in the U.K. Wikipedia is not censored. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP reference in Goatse.cx

The "Geographic Location" section of the above article has rightly been flagged as original research, but since it attributes responsibility for an internet shock site to a living person with no citation or support, it should surely be removed immediately. The article is currently under lockdown pending consensus on whether or not it should incorporate an image from the shock website (warning: it currently does). The FDD discussion is here; but this is a different issue.KD Tries Again (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

It has been removed.KD Tries Again (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Talk:Carrie Prejean

Talk:Carrie Prejean (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Carrie Prejean|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - repeated unsourced accusation using a term with specific legal meaning on talk page in reference to an individual mentioned in article. Attempted to delete such references with explanation, but those edits were immediately reverted by another editor. // Nat Gertler (talk)

Admin NatGertler is attempting to control the debate about the Carrie Prejean article. Admin NatGertler believes that it is ok and proper to quote directly the hate-filled speech of Prez Hilton toward Ms. Prejean in the Wikipedia article in direct contravention of the BLP and NPOV requirements of Wikipedia. He is for the full quote and there are editors who are reasonably against the quote. Admin NatGertler is now using his Admin position to intimidate and control the discussion so that he can impose his POV on the article. This type of tactic with editors has been going on for about one year in this article. It was recently brought up on Jimbo's talk page and Admin NatGertler believed that to be inappropriate, etc. Admin NatGertler has a direct conflict of interest in this situation and he needs to drop out and let another Admin handle it. This type of bullying and intimidation by admins is unacceptable. He is NOT a disinterested three party. He is attempting to impose his viewpoint on the article, which violated NPOV. Also, the direct quotation of Hilton's hate-filled speech is a violation of BLP. And finally the constant piling on Ms. Prejean has turned the article into a coatrack.--InaMaka (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Please calm down, do you have a citation reliable that attributes that this speech is a hate filled speech, if that is your personal opinion you need to stop asserting it all over the place. Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No I'm not going to "calm down" since I am already perfectly calm. You might not like what I said but that has nothing to with whether I am perfectly calm. You don't know if I a "calm" or not. I don't even know you. I'm actually lying in bed right quietly as possible. How is my emotional state have anything to do with Mr. Hilton's hate-filled speech? That is silly. Try sticking to the issue and not my heart rate. It is not only my personal opinion, which I have a right to state, it also the opinion of the famous columnist Liz Smith and others. You can review Ms Smith's reference here: Liz Smith comments on Hilton's hate speech.--InaMaka (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Its enough to make me apply for admin status, policy stops me commenting how I feel about this. Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(1)"[H]e called her a 'dumb bitch' and drew a dick shooting cum on her face. [...] why hasn't anybody thought to call him on his [...] misogyny?" -- Anna North, Why Does Perez Hilton Get A Pass On Misogyny?, Jezebel, Jun 23, 2009.

Misogyny: a hatred of women. -- Merriam-Webster.

(2)"Robert Siciliano, a cyber crime expert, says Hilton’s sexist rant is feeding into a growing problem online—hateful, sexist, racist rants.

[...]

Hilton, a judge for Miss USA, lashed out on his website, calling Prejean the “B” word after she told him during the Miss USA pageant she believed marriage should be between a man and a woman. Since then, he’s taken the name calling to another level, saying in a TV interview, he really wanted to call Prejean the “C” word.

[...] Siciliano says it's a warning people like Hilton should heed before they use hateful words online." -- Carol Costello, Online hate speech, CNN, April 22, 2009. -- Rico 20:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here is the deal for the uninitiated. The underlying debate is whether the Carrie Prejean article should quote that Perez Hilton called her a "dumb bitch" as part of his tirade in response to her answer to the question he posed at the 2009 Miss America pageant, which controversy propelled Ms. Prejean to the front pages of news websites for months to follow. Editors have varying opinions on the talk page. InaMaka has today taken the a new tackasserts that the term "dumb bitch" (which a search shows appears in other unrelated wikipedia articles) is hate speech.--Milowent (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC) (Minor edit added in light of below comment from InaMaka--Milowent (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

No. Milowent is absolutely wrong. I have called Hilton's hate-filled speech "hate speech" for over a year. I have stated this in the edit summaries, on the Prejean talk page, on Jimbo's talk page--over fifty times. Now, that an Admin has come along and he is determined to be put the whole quote in the article that admin has decided that I cannot call Mr. Hilton hate-filled speech "hate speech" even though there are famous folks such as Liz Smith who have already called it that. Also, Milowent leaves out of his summary the fact that at one point in time the article quoted the "db" quote five different times. Also, Milowent is leaving out of his summary that Milowent and Admin NatGertler have been quoting Hilton's hate-filled speech directly over and over again in on the talk page and in Hilton's article. So basically Milowent and Admin NatGertler have decided that they are going to take the tactic of stopping me from calling Hilton's words hate speech just Liz Smith did but it is ok for them to quote "dumb bitch" word for word. And finally Milowent left out of his selective summary the fact that Jimbo has called the Prejean article a coatrack.--InaMaka (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Over a year, incredulous, wikipedia is doomed to be destroyed by such issues. Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

To correct a couple of things here: No, I am not an admin. No, violating BLP repeatedly for over a year does not make it all right. And no, Liz Smith is not a reliable source on legal matters. You want to say Hilton's speech strikes you as filled with hate, fine. But the term you used has specific meanings in the law. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"Stalking" has a legal definition too, but I get 19,335 hits for "stalking"in Wikipedia talk pages.[18] Do I need to cite "a reliable source on legal matters," before writing that someone is stalking me? -- Rico 21:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Of course, you don't need a reliable source to state your opinion. People state their opinions all over the place on Wikipedia. Editor NatGertler just wants to control the debate and shut down our BLP concerns. But we all must remember that the article must be written from a NPOV and adding sensationalistic tabloid type of information in not allowed on Wikipedia and repeating the potentially defamatory material of another is NOT acceptable according the BLP rules. At no time has Nat Gertler provided an explanation of how the quote makes the article better--other than it was said. People say things all the time. The only reason that Nat Gertler has given is that Hilton made the comment and we can reliable source it. That is NOT an reason why it doesn't violate BLP or NPOV. It is merely pointing out that it is reliably sourced. This argument that "db" needs to be quoted in the article has not been fully explained. Yes, it is sensationalistic and yes it is sexist and yes it is mysogonistic but it is NOT necessary or helpful. We can express Hilton's hatred of Prejean's comments without quoting him word for word. We do not have to create an attack page or a coatrack to do it either. There are other less tabloid ways to get the point across without assisting Hilton in his attack on Prejean.--InaMaka (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If any accusation can be sloughed off with a "that's just my opinion"... well, we could do away with BLP policy altogether then. As for your inventions about my motivations and your blatantly false descriptions of my Talk page posts, they are irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you wish to discuss concerns over the inclusion of the Hilton quote on the Carrie Prejean page, that should be a separate discussion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at your talk page, and I don't see where InaMaka has made any descriptions of your Talk page posts.

I looked in the following sections:

T:Ssm (Talk:Same sex marriage)

Traditional_Marriage_Movement

Same-sex_marriage

SSM (Same sex marriage)

NOM (National Organization for Marriage)

Same_Sex_Marriage

Marriage

Please_comment_and_give_your_opinion_as_an_active_editor_of_homosexuality-related_articles_on_English_Wikipedia.2C_thank_you_very_much

Marriage

Question (about the bio of the leader about the National Organization for Marriage)

Proposed_deletion_of_Lauren_Ashley (another beauty pageant contestant that said marriage is between a man and a woman)

You say that they're "they are irrelevant to the topic at hand," but I have objectively proven that almost all of the editors that have fought for the Carrie Prejean attack coatrack of a living person have shown interest in gay/same-sex marriage.[19] (Skip down to the bullet points.) You have consistently fought for using the 'encyclopedia' article to vilify Miss Prejean, who said marriage was between a man and a woman. Coincidence? -- Rico 03:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Being that I have not fought for Carrie Prejean being an attack coatrack, but merely being precise on the items it covers, your supposedly objective analysis really does not impact me. I have not fought to villify anyone. It is not surprising that editors involved in gay marriage discussions will come to this topic, as there are relevant links back and forth in the articles. And the concerns about the description of my Talk page posts refer to Talk:Carrie Prejean, not any user talk page posts, and InaMaka's incorrect comment here "At no time has Nat Gertler provided an explanation of how the quote makes the article better--other than it was said. People say things all the time. The only reason that Nat Gertler has given is that Hilton made the comment and we can reliable source it."; sorry if that confused you. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Rico has acurrately exposed Nat Gertler's biased editing patterns. I agree completely with Rico that Nat Gertler, and nearly all of the editors who share his left-wing poltical beliefs, have fought long and hard to use the article on Miss Prejean as an attack page/coatrack to further an agenda. It's no coincidence. One look at the history in the links Rico posted reveals this. It should be noted here that Nat Gertler successfully managed to get the Traditional Marriage Movement (a group who believes in traditional heterosexual marriage) article deleted. Coincidence? I don't think so. Furthermore, his edits on National Organization for Marriage is worrisome in my humble opinion. I strongly believe Mr. Gertler is unable to edit in a NPOV manner when it comes to any subject that opposes homosexual marriage. The Miss Prejean article is only one of many examples. Caden ^cool 18:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That "Nat Gertler, and nearly all of the editors who share his left-wing poltical beliefs, have fought long and hard to use the article on Miss Prejean as an attack page/coatrack to further an agenda" flies pretty hard in the face of my actual record on this article. Checking the history, I've been editing on it less than a month. My edits during that time have included such things as repeatedly reverting the addition of discussion of breast implants to a section header, and such highly uncontroversial things as correcting punctuation errors, correcting the name of the pageant where it was misrepresented, correcting the spelling of "Christian"... and yes, there were places where I called for more precision, but it was part of the same effort, an effort to improve the article. And yes, I proposed the deletion of the "Traditional Marriage Movement" article, as I (and enough of the other people who voiced in on the AfD) couldn't find sufficient evidence that it existed as a notable "movement" - but I have helped with the article that replaced it, Opposition to same-sex marriage in the United States. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Milowent, here are some other things you left out:

You wrote, "I think Carrie is an idiot,"[20], put in the article that "some reports have noted that teens have been prosecuted as sex offenders for sending such tapes,"[21] and substituted polling for a discussion[22] -- voting that it should be in the BLP that an openly gay gossip blogger called her a "dumb bitch."

You can't just write in the article that Miss Prejean is a "dumb bitch," but can report that someone else said it, if enough Wikipedians want that.[23] Then an admin can come along and declare, "Consensus seems to favor inclusion"[24], and restore the disputed content -- even though Wikipedia:HARM#For removal of sourced content states, "Only restore the content if there is a clear and unequivocal consensus to do so," and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Restoring deleted content states, "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material."

You argued, "'Prejean admitted that making the video of herself and sending it — an act that other teens have been prosecuted as sex offenders for doing'). I suppose that last one supports a mention of it in the article."[25] Another editor thanked you for your "great objective research," and bought into your idea of "creat[ing] a Carrie Prejean Child Porn Sex Video article."[26]

There have been dozens of editors and admins that have not been editing to create an encyclopedia article, but to create an attack coatrack of a living person. -- Rico 04:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I am proud of my work to defend this article and I am shocked and appalled at your selective mischaracterization of the total body of my edits to this article. I demand an immediate retraction to be published forthwith! Yes, I do think Carrie is an idiot, yet I fought against the worst bile that was being inserted back when I was active on the article. The "problem", if you will, was that reliable sources were reporting on the material you dislike. When Carrie said she was 17 at the time she made the little videos (which she was lying about), that caused reports about how other teens have gotten in trouble for the same behavior. And, yes, one rabid editor accepted my sarcastic suggestion that we create a Carrie Prejean Child Porn Sex Video article. None of the drama you are stirring up surprises me. You can head over to James O'Keefe and attack my efforts to corral both extremes there as well.--Milowent (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you Milowent. What Rico posted above is quite true. Your body of edits speak for itself. Furthermore, by you calling Miss Prejean an "idiot" and your idea of creating an article called Carrie Prejean Child Porn Sex Video, speaks volumes about you. I personally find your idea of such a BLP violation and your insults on Miss Prejean apalling. Caden ^cool 18:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The underlying deal is that Miss Prejean said this and the openly gay gossip blogger, that asked the question, said this. -- Rico 21:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the core of it all.--Milowent (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Then she was exiled from the after-party. -- Rico 08:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hutaree

Some editors have read or heard of the things this right wing "Christian militia" group is accused of plotting, and wish to state in they lede that "they are terrorists." There is an edit war over the terms to be used to describe them. Some references included to show that they are terrorists consist of some writer saying that the "main stream media" is not calling them terrorists, but the writer thinks they are. I suggest that they not be baldly labelled as terrorists, but if some government official or mainstream media says they are, the label should be attributed to that source, and not be included as a simple statement of fact. BLP should apply strongly to those accused of crimes who have not been tried. Some eyes on this article would be appropriate. Edison (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be good to only use extremely strong citation there and take care not to assert anything, there is going to be a big trial. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the page should be fully or semi-protected so that language or categories achieve consensus on the talk page before being added. I have edited it so I hesitate to protect it. Edison (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Full support for that Edison, semi protected, excessive categorization with BLP issues, I can't see that anyone under the circumstances would have any objections. Off2riorob (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Kim Ung-Yong

This guy was apparently a famous child prodigy in the 1960's who since then has been trying to keep out of the public eye. The article was vandalized a few days ago (without being fixed) and I just came across it by accident. It has a weird and long history of editing from IP addresses over a several year period. Almost all the content (though not obnoxious) was unsourced with source requests, and seemed weird enough that I deleted it all. Looking at some of the old history (July 2008) it was formerly sourced to a now-404'd German-language article on a Korean TV station website. There is a Wayback Machine snapshot of the article, which is a somewhat gossipy human-interest story but reasonably backs up some of the older and longer versions of the article, so I might restore some of it (the stuff removed is not exactly contentious, just a bit unusual). A bit more annoying, the guy has a fairly large number of Google hits, almost -all- of them apparently derived from the enwiki article. There are also a bunch of interwiki links to non-English wikipedias and the ones I can decipher any of seem to have about the same info. Even the Korean one has the same outgoing links (I can't read any of the words though). I wonder how many of enwiki's BLP problems propagate to other language wikis like this.

Given the frequent vandalism to this article, some watchlisting would be appropriate. On the other hand, a fair amount of the (extensive) IP editing is of reasonable quality, so semi-protection probably isn't called for. It could also be useful if a Korean speaker could look at the Korean sources and maybe find additional ones.

I have been looking into IP-address editing of BLP's in response to a request from Casliber; there actually doesn't seem to be that much in general, and this article is pretty unusual.

66.127.52.47 (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Nelly Furtado & over-zealous patrolling by admin users who are taking matters personally

Nelly Furtado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nelly Furtado & Gestapo-style patrolling by admin users [apologies for some of the heated argumnets, but the patroller Morenooso is provoking people beyond the limits]

Manual of Style for Bios, Nelly Furtado & Gestapo-style patrolling by admin users

Please bear with me because this is very serious

PART I - Introduction

I seem to unwittingly have stepped on a minefield in a battle being waged by Wikipedia ‘patroller’ Morenooso against “Portuguese nationalists”. On 27 or 28 March 2010 on the Nelly Furtado page I added the word “Portuguese” to “Canadian” where it said she “is a Canadian singer-songwriter”, thus changing it to “she is a Portuguese-Canadian”. User Morenooso (More Noose?) reverted it and sent me a note about me using “different styles” which would make it difficult to read” – pure nonsense, by the way, as readability is one-thing and in-house style is another (I have ten years experience as a real life editor – radio, television and magazines). So, I tried to plough through Wikipedia pages on Style etc and read something about hyphenating nationalities. So I went back and changed it to “Canadian of Portuguese descent”

Guess what? Mr Rambo Morenooso came shooting within less than 15 minutes of my posting! And someone called Slim Virgin went and semi-protected the page in question. This is what “More Noose” left me: Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Nelly Furtado. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. Thank you.--Morenooso (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC) · Advice - This article was put under semi-protection by an Admin because of nationalist edits like yours which can now be considered vandalistic. I'd recommend dropping the issue. --Morenooso (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC) What exactly the first note means, god only knows – why not spit it out? The second note “Warning” already alerted me to the fact that something was going on. So, I went to the page and saw that he had reversed my edit. That really got my blood boiling! So, I began looking into the matter. Oh, and by the way – the page is now “semi-protected”! to stop vandals! How can we stop the nooses such as ‘more nooso’?

PART II – attack against me

I demand a public apology from Morenooso for accusing me of vandalism and of “nationalist edits like yours”. It is at the same time a brilliant choice of words – so you are assuming that because I have a Portuguese name that I am Portuguese, making “nationalist edits”. So, if my Portuguese surname makes me Portuguese, does Furtado not make Nelly Portuguese? I am not using this as an argument for “Portuguese-Canadian”, but merely to illustrate your ridiculous accusation – and hoping that more sensible administrators will take corrective action.

For your information I am actually South African of Angolan parents – there are five independent African countries that speak Portuguese and where a significant portion of the population (possibly the majority) carry Portuguese surnames.

I am also fluent in a few languages, contribute to Wikipedia in at least 6 and can easily read another 10, in which, if I suspect something is wrong I can refer it to colleagues who speak that language to check. The colleagues I refer to are professional translators on a number of forums where we are in permanent contact to help each with translation issues.

PART III – historical record of tampering with this issue

Unbeknownst to me, this is an old war, which has been going on for ages, with Morenooso personally involved in it as far back as could (ab) use his powers! People have for years been adding “Portuguese” to Nelly Furtado’s “Canadian” only to have it deleted by the likes of Morenooso and – according to the records, someone called Yamla before him. I ask you, is it not better to accommodate popular sentiments rather than have people who get cheap thrills out of imposing their authority overriding contributions on the grounds of some ill-defined rules? And don’t give me nonsense about rules, because I’ll get there. In the process, I’ve now taken the trouble to spend a lot of my time on this, so I expect the matter to be handled with the respect that it deserves – and not a cabal cover-up to protect Morenooso. . I could live with it if it was strict editorial policy. However, the Furtado case has – over the years - been argued back and forth. NOT – as you would have expected - on the grounds of editorial policy, but on all kinds of ad hoc rules nonsense such as seen in silly comments of the type “prove that she is Portuguese and I’ll allow it”. But fine. Let’s go with the rule that Morenoose most often trouts “mention of nationality in the opening paragraph”. However, this rule is not followed in other languages. So, Wikipedia must either re-invent centuries of editorial policies, codes and guidelines (as it appears to be doing) that will apply TO ALL LANGUAGES (after all, it is the Wikipedia Project), or, if that is not the aim and each language must determine its course, then it must accept existing language conventions and bow to centuries of English editorial style. And nowhere is there a rule about how to refer to nationality in the opening paragraph. In my time, I’ve proofed, subbed, edited, translated a few hundred thousand words. Now, about Mr Morenooso (‘more noose’ on freedom of expression? I’ve put ten years of my life into freedom of expression, press freedom and human rights in Africa). Morenooso is extremely arrogant, leaving his print wherever he goes through with statements like “I repeat”; “have already said”; “I hate to be blunt but the rules are the rules”; “If you don't want to follow this rule, then I gently suggest you edit other articles or go elsewhere where you are permitted to break the rules”; “It is the country where the person is born. Period.” Period? That’s it? He is the law? That’s what it would appear if you read the complaints against him! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nelly_Furtado And his comment to me personally “I’d recommend dropping the issue”. The latter actually implies that Morenooso thinks I know that there is an issue around this matter - in other words, he indirectly admits that this is just one more time that he is dealing with this matter, undoing one more edit. With millions of edits every hour, how was he able to go back to my second edit in a matter of minutes? Obviously this is a pet hate of his. Or does he do nothing else but monitor if anyone dares to change when he has ruled on a specific matter? Type Morenooso into Google and you will be happy/ aghast to see how many times the name comes up in connection with his abuse of power. Type [Morenooso] +[vandalism]; [Morenooso]+[abuse] etc to read the complaints against Wikipedia. But neither you or I should have to do that – merely look at his record on the Nelly Furtado discussion page. And before Morenooso, his ‘predecessor’, waging this war against referring to Nelly Furtado as “Portuguese-American”. http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=12061&mode=threaded Still on Google – and therefore out there embarrassing us, the Wikipedia community to the world - Morenooso has the following to say on his privileged user page: “chances are I put your talkpage on Watch” – what exactly does that mean? What kind of language is that to be using towards other contributors? Some of us are more than equal? But here is an interesting comment by Morenooso: “Wikipedia has rules. With every rule there is an exception. Unfortunately Furtado does not fall in the exception range – Morenooso. Ok. So what is the “exception range” and where do we mere mortals find out how to gauge whether we are within the range? Or would Morenooso prefer to keep it a secret for the initiated cabal?

PART IV – the folly of this administrator war

At any rate, it is sheer folly to try and provoke Portuguese speakers across the world for the sake of trying to impose a rule that as you can see from the examples below is not followed in probably thousands of cases (the one I listed below I gathered in a few minutes – imagine how there aren’t out there. The Wikipedia community is about knowledge not turf wars – so let’s try and not turn this into it with accusations of “nationalist edits”. What would become of Wikipedia if actions of users such as Morenooso attracted the attention of hackers out for vengeance? Would your Gestapo-style policing have been worth it?

There are also comments by these super-editors or patrollers about “Portuguese nationalists” repeatedly adding the word “Portuguese” to the opening paragraph.

I see reference in discussions between these Gestapo users about blocking Portuguese IPs and Ids to stop them from insisting on adding “Portuguese” to Nelly Furtado. These cowboy rogue patrollers are doing a great disservice to the Wikipedia project and should be weeded out. Take the trouble to Google for instances of people complaining about “Wikipedia editors”. Yamla, Morenooso, http://manojranaweera.com/2007/01/08/wikipedia-sucks-no-it-doesnt

PART V – Lack of consistency in application of soc-called rules

Please look at the log under “Nationality as per Manual of Style for Bios- statement by government & dual birth certificate of page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nelly_Furtado ”I have reason to believe that Morenooso has a personal grievance to seeing Nelly Furtado being referred to as Portuguese – he reversed it once now it sees it as a personal affront every time someone adds the word Portuguese. He has demonstrated it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nelly_Furtado by amassing a range of arguments for doing so, including ridiculing himself by claiming that adding Portuguese to Canadian “Portuguese-Canadian” makes it hard to read!

If the logic is that the person should be referred to by the nationality under which he or she gained fame, then why is Albert Einstein referred to as “Swiss-American”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_einstein In fact, if the style rule is to make the text look tidy, then is “German-born Swiss-American” nor far worse than “Portuguese-Canadian”?

And what about the notability rule here? Einstein was famous long before moving to the US – in fact his move to the US was a consequence of his being famous!

The arguments by the super-editors for not citing Furtado as “Portuguese-Canadian” are ridiculous, one by know-it-all Morenooso himself with this latter day commandment: "Repeat: I do not think a statement by Furtado that she is Portuguese would be sufficient" by user Morenooso; another asking that proof be produced that Canada has accepted her dual citizenship”. How arrogant! Nationality is not only about paperwork, it is about identity!

What kind of inquisition is this? Is this being done with every one of the hundreds of thousands of people listed on Wikipedia as being A+B? I believe not. Because if it is, where is Einstein’s US birth certificate?

And so what, if members of the worldwide Portuguese community take pride in seeing Furtado as one of their own and want that fact made prominent? Are the Canadians complaining? Threatening to deport her is she goes live claiming to be Portuguese? Again, nationality is not only about paperwork, it is about identity! Who is Morenooso to want to impose his own vendetta against it?

Would it not serve the project better if people like Morenooso cared a bit more about knowledge and culture than on militarily imposing a rule that is flaunted in thousands of pages, for a personal sense of gratification? If Morenooso cared more about knowledge, he would know that Furtado was the official singer at the UEFA Euro 2004 held in Portugal, as the “Portuguese poster girl” for the cup. Her rendition of the Cup song (Força) has become a worldwide symbol of Portuguese identity. In fact, the Congress of Portuguese-Canadians has since then created the “Nelly Furtado ‘Força’ Award”. Imagine that – an award conferred by the Portuguese community in Canada named after none other than whom? A deservedly “Portuguese-Canadian”.

PART VI – the history

Nelly Furtado is mentioned in the article “Music of Portugal”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_of_Portugal

Furtado began singing in Portuguese at community events of the Portuguese community in Canada, her officially first public appearance being singing at her mother’s side singing the Portuguese anthem on Portuguese National Day. How much more Portuguese than that do you want her to be? Do a DNA test?

It is a shame that Morenooso should spend so much time patrolling well-meaning contributions with a Gestapo mentality instead of making more fruitful contributions to the project.

For your information, Portuguese-Canadians are officially recognised as such in Canada, the Portuguese-Canadian community being held in high esteem in mutual respect, arising from when Canada invited and assisted Portuguese to immigrate into Canada (in what is called a sponsored immigration look it up) at a time when Portuguese were being repressed under the yoke of the Portuguese nationalist dictatorship. In 2003, Canada issued a series of stamps commemorating 50 years of the official Portuguese immigration.

Part VII – The Style Guide

Nothing is ever cast in stone – even constitutions get reviewed, changed amended etc. Happens to laws, decrees etc all the time. It is a logical process of civilisation – look at the pillars that uphold your values and revise them as and when necessary. And inept administrators get fired. In the past few days, instead addressing the issue, I seen people writing about making the rules less ambiguous, so as not to fave further challenges by those advocating for "Portuguese-Canadian". So the rule-makers are a power unto themselves?

There are numerous areas that dearly need improvement, so it is such a pity that members such as Morenooso choose to spend/ waste their time tilting at windmills.

Part VIII – a few examples of references to more than one nationality in the opening paragraph

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Fernandes_%28footballer%29 is a Portuguese-Canadian footballer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Fernandes Canadian singer of Portuguese and Italian descent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_Silveira What exactly is a Portuguese-Canadian family?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tavares_%28lacrosse%29 “and is of Portuguese descent”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Silva is a Canadian politician and is one of two MPs of Portuguese descent in the Canadian Parliament

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadia_Almada Madeiran-born UK reality television star

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Aguilar English novelist and writer on Jewish history and religion, was born in Hackney of Jewish parents of Portuguese descent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_De_Forrest was a Portuguese-born American early silent film actor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Barretto_Spinola was the first Portuguese American to be elected to the United States House of Representatives

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_%28musician%29 English soul and R&B singer-songwriter, of Nigerian background

Portuguese-Canadian National Congress http://www.congresso.ca/english/default.aspx

Federation of Portuguese Canadian Business and Professionals http://www.fpcbp.com/

Part IX

I’ll monitoring all these pages now to see whether good sense prevails or whether the likes of Morenooso get their way and everything now gets changed to cover up for the inadequacies of people who should never have been entrusted with power – however little. --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

There's more than a bit of forum-shopping going on here. Short version of this controversy from my perspective: MOS:BIO discourages the use of ethnicity in the lead. Editors are claiming that Furtado has always been a dual citizen. If true, that would allow the use of "Portuguese-Canadian". However, no source has been presented that shows the Canadian government recognizes and respects any claim by Furtado to Portuguese citizenship. What has been presented is private analysis of Canadian and Portuguese citizenship laws, which comes under the blanket of WP:OR. This has led to a long-festering dispute. Unfortunately, it has become a shouting match. Morenooso has been making claims about the contents of MOS:BIO that do not stand up under examination, which has been inflaming the situation.—Kww(talk) 16:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Does BLP proscribe quoting what JTF-GTMO wrote about Abu Bakker Qassim?

Abu Bakker Qassim was a Uyghur captive in Guantanamo -- one of the first five to have been determined to be innocent, in 2005.

The initial determination that five of these men were innocent, while the other 17 had their enemy combatant status confirmed was controversial, because critics noted that that the five who were determined to be innocent, and the 17 who were confirmed to be enemies faced essentially the same allegations and essentially the same evidence. Back in 2004, when these individuals Combatant Status Review Tribunals were underway, some interagency memos were exchanged between Joint Task Force Guantanamo, and OARDEC. JTF-GTMO was the agency responsible for the Guantanamo captives detention and interrogation. OARDEC, the Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants, was created in 2004 when the SCOTUS ordered independent reviews of the determinations that the captives were "enemy combatants".

I found one of the memos buried in a large file, and I put it on wikisource -- Information paper: Uighur Detainee Population at JTF-GTMO. This memo has a short paragraph about each of the Uyghur captives.

I quoted some of those brief paragraphs in the articles of the captive it applied to. Here is what JTF-GTMO wrote to OARDEC about Abu Bakr Qasim

Abu Bakr Qasim is a 35-year-old ethnic Uighur and a Chinese citizen, born in 1969, in Ghulja, China. He claims to have fled China in an effort to escape Chinese oppression of the Uigher [sic] people. After fleeing China, the detainee traveled to Afghanistan. He was last interviewed in mid 2004. He has no reported incidents of violence in his discipline history. Qasim is suspected as being a probable member of the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM). He is suspected of having received training in an ETIM training camp in Afghanistan.

Even though when the SCOTUS ordered that the Guantanamo captives access to habeas corpus be restored, the DoJ and DoD quietly acknowledged that they were no longer prepared to argue they had evidence to justify labelling these men enemy combatants, there are some US politicians and some commentators who continue to describe them as terrorists.

What JTF-GTMO wrote about these men is important. I suggest that we don't want to follow the practice prevalent in Stalin's time of making inconvenient information simply disappear.

User:Iqinn has removed those short paragraphs from the articels on the Uyghurs. On December 18, 2009, The edit summary for removing the section states: "rm - strong BLP concern - the removed part is a misinterpretation and misrepresantation of a questionable primary source - I see this issue as taken to the talk page where i left a message"

After he responded to the points left on the talk page another contributor reverted the excision 2 days later.

Three months later, on March 20, 2010, Iqinn excised the passage a second time, with an essantially identical edit summary. I restored it to status quo ante with the edit summary: "reverting per WP:Reverting#When to revert -- see talk" Iqinn excised the material a third time, with the edit summary: "do not revet controversial material back into the article that violates BLP policies - fix the problems or discuss on the talk page" Another contributor subsequently changed it back.

On the talk page Iqinn told me I was "edit warring". He said he was going to bring the issue to BLPN. Ultimately, it doesn't look he has done so.

After that long preable I have a few questions:

1. Does anyone agree that BLP authorized the removal of this material?
2. How seriously should one take the advice of WP:Reverting#When to revert, in general? And specifically, when should BLP over-ride the advice of WP:Reverting#When to revert?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to understand exactly what is the issue, is it this content? If it is then where is it cited to? Content removed in good faith and with the desire to protect living people should not be replaced without a community consensus here or on the talkpage of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Abu Bakr Qasim is a 35-year-old ethnic Uighur and a Chinese citizen, born in 1969, in Ghulja, China. He claims to have fled China in an effort to escape Chinese oppression of the Uigher [sic] people. After fleeing China, the detainee traveled to Afghanistan. He was last interviewed in mid 2004. He has no reported incidents of violence in his discipline history. Qasim is suspected as being a probable member of the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM). He is suspected of having received training in an ETIM training camp in Afghanistan

• That is the passage in question.
• The source is a 7 page document found on pages 28-34 of http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_arb/publicly_filed_CSRT_records_1731-1808.pdf#28-34 and manually transcribed to wikisource by yours truly Geo Swan (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Works related to Information paper: Uighur Detainee Population at JTF-GTMO at Wikisource

There seems to be no BLP problem here. It appears that BLP and the cited passage may have been misunderstood. Whether and how much of such a source is appropriate is for the article talk page, but this is labelled extract from a clearly relevant official source discussing a detainee. As long as we quote and attribute it correctly and make clear allegations are just that, there is no problem.John Z (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

But that is the problem here it that it is quoted and attributed in a misleading way. I have listed the problems on the Talk:Abu_Bakker_Qassim#removal_of_questionable_information_.282.29 articles talk page. But instead of addressing the arguments and problems the content has just been reinserted in a misleading way that violates BLP that should be discussed and fixed before reinserting. I have listed the problem on the talk page:

The Combatant Status Review section had a subsection "Transcript" i have removed most of the information there for the following reasons: 1) I do not see the information is rightly placed under CSRT subsection "Transcript". 2) The introduction (hidden in the template) does not make clear the real source for the text. 3) It is based on a questionable redacted primary source. 4) The introduction text presents this information as "brief biography" what i do not see as given. 5) The text includes allegation that needs multiply sources for verification. 6) The introduction text states that the source asserted: (all Uighur) "they where all caught at an "ETIM training camp". I do not see that a given in this reference. It may be the interpretation of the WP editor.

But instead of discussing the arguments they started an edit war and did not address any of these problems and did not engage into a discussion about these issues. IQinn (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if other contributors were to weigh in, and confirm or refute Iqinn's interpretation of whether this paragraph lapses from compliance with BLP.

I honestly believe that User:Sherurcij already addressed all the concerns Iqinn first stated on 2009-12-18, and repeated on 2009-12-20. Rather than offering meaningful and substantive counter-arguments Iqinn has simply repeated his original concerns, word-for-word, for the third time.

I dispute that I have misrepresented Iqinn's arguments.

As to whether the short paragraph in question was quoted in a misleading way -- the document has a single short paragraph on Abu Bakr Qassim. That paragraph is quoted in full. So its use in that article is not misleading. Iqinn hates his previous comments being quoted. And he hates being paraphrased -- even when a good faith contributor's paraphrase is a good faith attempt to clarify what Iqinn really meant by a comments that was unclear, ambiguous, or interally contradictory. I think it necessary to paraphrase Iqinn here. It seems to me that Iqinn routinely calls the use of WP:RS "misleading", "unreliable", "questionable", "POV", when what he really means is that he personally does not recognize what the underlying WP:RS says as credible. He routinely uses these terms when I think he isn't challenging that our material is accurately and neutrally covering what WP:RS say, but when he doesn't want what those WP:RS say to be covered in the wikipedia at all. I have tried to explain this to Iqinn in many other discussions -- WP:NPOV and WP:VER make our personal intrepretations of the credibility of what WP:RS say irrelevant. Geo Swan (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Uuuu... one more example of user Geo Swan's uncivil posts full of paraphrasing, lies, personal attacks and ad hominum arguments without addressing any of the six points concerning the content issue and without delivering valid counter arguments. User Sherurcij has reinserted this material without prior discussion, consensus and without fixing any of these problems.

Yes i can confirm Geo Swan constantly paraphrases other editors in a misleading uncivil way and he has done it here as well. Yes and people have assumed good faith for a long time and they have ask user Geo Swan in a friendly way many times to stop this undesirable behavior but assuming good faith has limits so he should be warned now that he can be blocked for this kind of uncivil behavior.

Once again stop your uncivil behavior and address the given arguments concerning the content issue. IQinn (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussions in fora in the wikipedia name space, and on articles' talk pages, are supposed to be confined to editorial issues, and not stray into issues of personal conflict. Iqinn asserts that he is being misrepresented so often I have decided not to offer specific replies to each assertion. Instead I decided to link to a single reply on his talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to give a specific reply to my assertion of paraphrasing, lies, personal attacks and ad hominum arguments that occurred in your comment above. The post above is self evidence. To extend your ad hominum campaign onto my talk page won't help. What would help would be not to repeat your uncivil behavior in future debates. Please address the content issue instead of attacking people. Nothing in your reply here addresses the content issue. No valid counter arguments that addresses the six content problems that i have listed. IQinn (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Tim Minchin

Inside tim Minchin's Wikipedia article, it is stated that he was born and raised in Northhampton, UK. I think that this fact is wrong as Tim states inside his DVD "So Live" that he was BORN and raised in Perth, Western Australia. Is there someone who is able to rectify this?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnorN57 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless there's a controversy, ignore the rules and send him an email asking for clarification, and go with whatever he says. (added:) Actually the "proper" way to do this is ask Tim Minchin to pass the info through WP:OTRS. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The birth location is currently sourced to a twitter post which I presume is from Tim Minchin's verified account. This isn't the best source but it is a source and better then any e-mail to OTRS, so if there is dispute over this the better thing to do would be to remove the info entirely until a decent secondary source comes along Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, the issue is just that there's apparently video of him saying something different, so there's a discrepancy. In the past I'd have just emailed him and summarized his response on the talk page, rather than bothering with OTRS. But I know we've gotten more strict about such things. Removing the info is another ok approach, I guess (leave a note on the talk page about the removal and the reason for it). 66.127.52.47 (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous reverts

Resolved

 – issue is more relevent to Manual of style discussion than BLP

I received the following message on my discussion page: "Please do not add the honorific prefix to any of these wiki pages... I have gone through and revered most of your edits but it will take some time to undo the rest of them. If you could please re frame from doing this again it would be extremely helpful.--Triesault (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)"

User:Triesault has claimed that Members of the U.S. House of Representatives are not entitled to the honorific prefix "The honorable". Members of Congress do not require citation in order to be assigned the typical honorific. He/she has decided to revert many of the edits I have appropriately made to current Members of Congress. Regardless of their political party, they are entitled to this honorific. User:Triesault has decided to remove them from Members of the Democratic Party only. I request that User:Triesault be warned over this issue and be prevented from undoing all of my appropriate edits. 24.3.220.206 (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware of the Manual of Style section on Honorifics? Specifically MOS:HONORIFIC#Honorific prefixes -- œ^™ 06:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked. Anyway I'm not that fimiliar with practice in this area but the guideline appears to support the IP's desire to add the honorific if it is true that Members of Congress are entilted to it (this appears to be the issue of dispute). In particular:

Styles and honorifics which are derived from political activities ..... but may be legitimately discussed in the article proper

........

An example of "discussion in the article proper" would be listing the official, spoken, and posthumous styles for a pope within an infobox

However this appears to have started because the IP made mass undiscussed changes to the religion and the addition of the honorific when it was missing which is inappropriate; and then edit warred over it. Mass undiscussed changes of any sort are nearly always inappropriate even if supported by guidelines.

For the same reason I personally don't think it was a good idea for Triesault to remove the honorific from existing articles where it wasn't added by the IP without discussion but I don't believe he/she's selected only Democrats rather he/she only made the change in articles the IP had modified including ones where the honourific wasn't added by the IP. If there is a bias it must because of the IP's editing pattern. I'm not even sure there is a bias, this [27] for example is a Republican.

In any case as I hinted at in the beginning the bigger issue is whether the honorific should be there which depends on whether the honorific is indeed something that is normal for MoC which isn't answered by the guideline.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect name for person: Crazy Legs Conti

Hey Wikipedia,

You have created a page under the name Jason Conti - please note that for twenty years I have been known as Crazy Legs Conti - my taxes, my ids, my mum all refer to me as Crazy Legs Conti. Your wikipedia page for Gene Simmons doesn't have the heading Chaim Witz. Also, Fee Waybill is not listed as John Waldo (I am much more of a Tubes fan than a Kiss fan). Whatever proof you need, please let me know, however if you can change Jason Conti to Crazy Legs Conti it would be much appreciated. I can be reached via email at crazylegs@crazylegsconti.com.

Eat All You Can,

Crazy Legs

side note: If you were to publish Wikipedia how many volumes do you think it would be? Would door-to-door salesmen be involved? Just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.115.10.18 (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Crazy Legs - I've requested the article be moved. Hipocrite (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Article creator here, my apologies for the mistake--I messed that up. A move is right idea. You're awesome, Crazy Legs. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Tim Cowlishaw

Tim Cowlishaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On March 31, 2010, Tim Cowlishaw mentioned his wikipedia article on a national television channel, prompting a lot of IP and new username vandalism. I checked out the article and found it was almost entirely unsourced, so I significantly pruned the article to what the external links provided could verify. However, User:Purplebackpack89 has consistently tried to re-add uncited material. I added references as best I could but much of the article Purplebackpack89 would like to preserve is totally uncited. I have been trying to keep the article from unsourced information, but alas, I have decided to take it here because of persistent readding of uncited material by Purplebackpack89.--TM 15:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Several points:

1. I did not add controversial information, merely readded his birthdate (which he mentioned on said TV show along with his Wikipedia article) and that he had certain beats with the Dallas Morning News. The first is sourceable, second is in no way controversal
2. Other editors made similar edits. Why is Namiba singling me out?
3. Namiba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started out in good faith about BLP policy; he ended up edit warring. In a 24-hour period, he deleted Cowlishaw's birth date at least five times, and the information about his at least three times. He also POINTedly PRODded and then AFDed an article I created.

Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The subject is not very notable is he, almost no coverage, a radio program and a link to a not reliable TV dot com mini bio (which I am going to remove now) and a link to the subjects blog Has he won any awards? The article has existed about 4 or 5 years. Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should mention awards...Namiba deleted that as part of his BLP purge. Again, deleting uncontroversial information. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A claim of an award would need a supporting citation, why is there so little coverage about him? Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Purplebackpack - facts such as birthdates and awards absolutely need to be reliably sourced. The very first paragraph of BLP policy includes: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.". The birthdate and award information are being challenged, therefore reliable sources must be included in order to restore the contested information. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The challenge of that information by Namiba is absolutely ridiculous. It should be dismissed, and he should be blocked for disruption. There is no evidence to the contrary against a birth date of March 31, 1955. Obama doesn't even have a reference for his birth date, and some people challenge that. Why should some reporter have a reference? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 19:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The burden of proof lies with the individual wishing to add or retore contested information. Restoring contested info into a BLP article without adding sources such as you have here is edit warring. You've been around long enough to know this. Is including this unsourced information to an article on "some reporter" (your words) important enough to cross 3RR (it seems you may have dodged a bullet in this regard)? Perhaps a tea break would be beneficial? Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't do tea. Full stop Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but Barack Obama does include a reference for his birth date in the infobox and discusses his birth with references including to his birth certificate in the first section of the article albeit without mentioning the date (which isn't necessary given it's in the intro and infobox). Providing references in the summary is generally not necessary if the details are already in the article (which includes the infobox) and since the intro is intended to be a summary of the article this means usually it isn't necessary at all. Birthdates are perhaps the one exception since they are commonly not discussed in the article although as in the Obama case, they would usually be in the infobox. Incidentally, I suspect the Obama article has done something like this for a very long time, being a FA and all and in any case I looked at all the edits between now and sometime in 1st April, none of them substanially changed that portion. Also I'm not aware of many people challenging Obama's birth date, simply the location. Nil Einne (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a question

Resolved

 – wrong location, subject has long since expired.

Hello

At the article "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hunyadi", an user added the line

The native form of this personal name is Hunyadi János. This article uses Western name order when mentioning individuals.

The Hungarian form Hunyadi János was already presented in the lead:

János (John) Hunyadi (Hungarian: Hunyadi János [ˈhuɲɒdi ˈjaːnoʃ] , Romanian: Iancu (Ioan) de Hunedoara, Slovak: Ján Huňady, Serbian: Сибињанин Јанко / Sibinjanin Janko;
Is that add really necessary? Isn't it redundant to specify that name twice? Thanks in advance for the answer(Umumu (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC))

Addition does look pointy to me, The subject has been dead 600 years, suggest trying to engage the editor in discussion on the talkppage there, or perhaps ask the question on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style , this noticeboard is in relation to questions about living people. Off2riorob (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

May be related to dispute about place names of Hungarian-populated regions in Romania, that raged at ANI for a while earlier in the week. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Better Days (webcomic)

Better Days (webcomic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I've repeatedly removed accusations of "racism" from this article. It is my position that it is a horrible violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to label a living person (the artist of this webcomic) as a "racist" by using unreliable sources like the pseudonymous authors "The New Meat" and "El Santo" writing in the furry webcomic fan blogs "Crush! Yiff! Destroy!" and "The Webcomic Overlook". Pseudonymous authors of webcomic furry fan blogs do not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, so we should not let them call people "racist" on Wikipedia. However, Sugar Bear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) disagrees with me and has repeatedly reverted my removal of these accusations. Sugar Bear's position is that "this is not a biography. This is an article about a comic strip." // Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not really (imo) a big issue as regards BLP, small commentary about racist comic story and reviews considering author may also be.., article is under consideration at Article for deletion, more in regards to sourcing quality, here Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to call the author of the comic racist, and I don't think the reviewers are either, just that the portrayals could be construed as racist. But, considering that this is probably going to be deleted, the point seems to be moot. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC))

Sugarbear is in error. BLP applies to living people in any article, whether biographies or not. Sharks is correct; such a label must be cited to a reliable source, preferably more than one, and/or one of considerable standing. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Survivor: Samoa

What do we think of this? I've just taken out one contribution that I saw as a BLP violation (although not a terrible one) [28]. But this whole article reeks to me. It is unsourced plot summary, about real people, that mentions "lies", "vendettas" and "racist statements" among other things. If this material was about anyone other than reality TV contestants it would be totall unacceptable. I can't see the difference. We have no right to make negative commentary about the behaviour of people on reality TV unless its sourced to reliable secondary sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Example:

• "Upon returning from Tribal Council, Jaison talked to Mick about voting out Ben next because of the racist comments he made about Yasmin."

I would remove the excessive unexplained opinionated claims of racism and open a thread about it onr the talkpage for any discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This show has a history of focusing on race issues. In fact, there was an entire season focused on it, which caused some controversy. See Survivor: Cook Islands#Diversity and controversy. I softened the language a bit. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

There are issues here that need looking at, in the reality show that focused on race issues, the red camp said John Harrison was a racist, there is the issue, its a game show and subjects in the game show are playing themselves, there is a fudging on the border between the subjects own life and the game show and is is hard to seperate the two, it needs careful sourcing and commentary, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Using an advocacy website to add a negative opinion to a BLP

Terence Corcoran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe that blogs/advocacy websites are generally not considered to be reliable sources in Wikipedia, with certain exceptions. In this case, someone added some pejorative information to a BLP using an advocacy website/blog as a source. There is, of course, more to the story. There is some dispute as to whether the site in question is truly a blog or more of a project, which may make a difference in the validity and relevance of its claims. Also, there appears to be a public feud ongoing between that site's owner and Corcoran, the subject of that BLP. I'm seeking an independent opinion but have also notified the editor who made the edit about this discussion. Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with any outcome on this. Note that the staff at DeSmogBlog and Terence Corcoran are at loggerheads and have each made comments about the other over the years. Their mutual antipathy is a fact, and may bear documenting per wp:SPADE. ► RATEL ◄ 00:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The edit adds little of value and the citation is bit bloggish and clearly admitting opinionated against the subject, the content isn't really a BLP problem though a better citation is required the content is middle of the road really, king of the deniers, it seems a shame to remove the only citation presented to a three year old stub, is he really well covered and notable? Off2riorob (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Corcoran appears to be a regular columnist for one Canada's major newspapers, but otherwise I haven't searched around to see if there is much other information on him. I have no opinion on whether his article should be kept or not, just that if it is that it follows our BLP standards for information and sourcing. Cla68 (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

SPS sources are not permitted for such material in a BLP. I have removed the claim. ATren (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this Corcoran person is not notable enough to warrant a page of his own, since you have now removed the only cite on the page. ► RATEL ◄ 01:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That may be true, the prod tag you applied is probably appropriate in this case. ATren (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I commented on the notability issue on the article's talk page. Cla68 (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Bill Phillips (author)

Can some fresh eyes review the quality of sources used to make some pretty nasty claims about Bill Phillips (author)? One of the sources was from a web page whos directory lists it under "gossip" on a sketchy site. MM 207.69.137.15 (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Lord David West of Hollesley

The following is copied from WP:EAR#Lord David West of Hollesley –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Dave West (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A short time ago someone set up a page for Lord David West of Hollesley - someone who has had a noteworthy life as one of Britain's richest men, and most celebrated entrepreneurs. Taking an interest in his page we began to flesh out some of the details. (NB it has been noted wikipedia believes that the page seems like an advertisement more than an encyclopedic entry, and so a re-write is in progress).

It has saddend us to see that someone, who clearly has a grudge against David, has begun to put very one sided comments on this page accusing David of all kinds of unsubstantiated things. Although we have requested citations and corrected any misnomers, this person seems determined to put as many one sided comments on to the article as possible.

My real question is: Whilst there should obviously be balance, if the person is just trying to deface the page by making spurious allegations about 'sex tapes and dungeons', can we do anything about it. We've left the person's comments on the page so far and simply countered them, but is there anything we can do if this 'vandalism' continues.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response

Kind Regards

Jim Sherry

Chevalier121 (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have reported this and copied your comment to WP:BLPN#Lord David West of Hollesley, which is the right venue for this. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the unsubstantiated contentious allegation at the end of the article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Tina Charles

Tina Charles biography, in the part Career says: "Charles' big break came in 1975, when Indian-British music composer and record producer Biddu, who had just enjoyed massive success worldwide WRITING the disco hit "Kung Fu Fighting" for Carl Douglas, produced the single "I Love to Love (But My Baby Loves to Dance)" for her." When we go to the Kung Fu Fighting entrance, we read that "Kung Fu Fighting" is a song WRITTEN ADN PERFORMED by Carl Douglas, and produced by Biddu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snbarza (talk • contribs) 18:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

George Lopez

The following BLP-violation content was added to comedian George Lopez' biography:

"In February 2010, he referred to Sarah Palin as a "special needs" "[bitch]".

cited only to this short video clip. I changed it to this, to add context:

"During a stand-up comedy routine in February, 2010, Lopez referred to Sarah Palin as "la cabrona", and said, "Sarah Palin said that it is wrong for President Obama's advisor Rahm Emmanuel to use the word "retarded", but it's alright for Rush Limbaugh. When someone becomes irrational like that, complaining, not making any sense, it means only one thing: they're special needs."

...but frankly, I still don't see justification for even having this joke and punchline in a BLP, and have recommeded removing it completely until someone explains what it adds to the article. I would appreciate the input of others either here or on the article talk page. My own observations include:

• The "source" is a videoclip of a stand-up comedy routine; a primary source with no context, evaluation or reporting, hosted on the FOX Nation blog. BLP requires high-quality sources.
• The proposed content doesn't inform the reader. It's a joke about a politician (the #1 subject of stand-up comedy jokes), seemingly inserted into a biography just to disparage either Palin, Lopez or both.
• It isn't relevant to the subject; isn't something significantly covered in any reliable sources about the subject, and also appears to be inserted clumsily into the inappropriate "Film and television projects" section. (See undue weight.)
• Political personalities are the subject of stand-up comedy and talk-show jokes all the time. So why put this one joke and punchline into a biography? The only reasoning the original editor offers for inserting the content is, "And how often do you hear a major comedian on a non-premium broadcast channel refer to a major political figure as a bitch? If he wants to do that fine, but Lopez can't complain if a large number of his potential audience find it over the line." — which is no reason at all. There doesn't appear to be any news article anywhere reporting on why this particular joke and punchline are of any importance or relevance. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

From your report I agree with your position, a one line weakly cited comment about a living person that did not recieve wider reporting and it being given undue weight as regards negative portrayal of a living person. Remove as BLP undue weight given to a not widely reported derogatory comment about a living person. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has re-inserted the comedy routine snippet, without justifying the edit. What would be the appropriate steps to take to insure the integrity of the BLP? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I have left him a note and a link to this thread and an invitation to discuss the content here. He also added this link, it looks a bit bloggy to me, is this wikipedia reliable? http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/02/13/george-lopez-calls-sarah-palin-a-btch This one line derogatory joke is of no encyclopedic value at all, it is just an worthless insult. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The quote is backed by two sources--by Fox News reporting (not an article, but a video clip with a corresponding reported headline), and an article on "Big Hollywood". The derogatory joke is encyclopedic because it is highly unusual for a major comedian on a major non-premium network to refer to a major political figure using a term as strong as a "bitch." The reader is informed about Lopez' disregard for following comedic standards when it comes to referring to one of his political enemies.--Drrll (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to add the notable point that he makes rude jokes about politicians then find a citation that says that, leave the not notable specific insults disguised as comedy out of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Fox Nation blog cite merely indicates that a comedian told a joke about a politician (gasp!) with no further reporting, and the Breitbart blog isn't an acceptable source for anything but opinion, and not even that where BLPs are concerned. Your own personal opinions about what is "highly unusual"; "derogatory"; what terms are "strong"; and what constitutes "comedic standards" and "political enemies" may be of interest to some folks, but this is a biography about Lopez. If there is significant information about Lopez' disregard for comedic standards or political enemies worthy of insertion into a biography, certainly you can find and cite the high-quality sources required by WP:BLP. And instead of quoting a couple of uncomplimentary phrases from a comedy monologue, try informing the reader in neutral, encyclopedic terms of whatever it is you feel needs to be conveyed, with proper sourcing, of course. (See also this.) Xenophrenic (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Xenophrenic and Off2riorob - it's a BLP vio. The material is poorly sourced, and violates WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:WELLKNOWN. --Ronz (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing material about reality TV contestants

FYI - discussion here about sourcing requirements for plot summaries of reality TV shows that involve living persons. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Biography of Carole Bayer Sager

Carole Bayer Sager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Resolved

 – simple non controversial content discussion, move to article talk page discussion

It is stated in Sager's bio that she wrote "You've Got a Groovy Kind of Love" while she was still a student at the High School of Music and Art. The song was written in 1965 - Sager graduated from HS in 1961 (Her picture is in the 1961 yearbook). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.154.111 (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Biography of Ronn Torossian

Ronn Torossian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please assist. People with a long standing grudge are editing the document and manipulating it despite the fact their attempts have been rebuffed previously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.122.113 (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please assist. People with a long standing grudge are editing the document and manipulating it despite the fact their attempts have been rebuffed previously. Mosmof and friends are ganging up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 09:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is locked after a bit of reverting, this is really not a big BLP issue, there are no clear violations, all the content is cited and pretty much ok, it is a content dispute and weight, this is going to need more talkpage discussion to find the middle ground. Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Azeezaly Jaffer

Azeezaly Jaffer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article needs a lot of work. Woogee (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Content was a copyright violation. I have stubbed it back to within an inch of its life, feel free to expand or prod, limited notability postmaster general in the US anthrax attacks, one event type stuff. Off2riorob (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ronald Brown

Ronald Brown (mathematician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article on Ronald Brown (mathematician) contains some false statements, but in particular it states that I am openly gay:

I am unclear where this idea came from! I can name at least one other to whom this would apply. Let it be said here (but not on wikipedia) that my wife and I now live happily in Deganwy, having married in 1958; we have 8 children (one unfortunately lost in a climbing accident) and 8 grandchildren, much of whom form a happy band, who visit us regularly.

signed:

Ronald Brown —Preceding unsigned comment added by RonnieBrown (talk • contribs) 11:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

that appears to have been vandalism, or at the very least uncited content, which has been corrected by User:Off2riorob. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I have removed the uncited claim of sexual preference and have added it to my watchlist, the article could do with a bit of improvement, if there are any wikipedian mathematics editors watching. Off2riorob (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hilda Solis

Regarding Hilda Solis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the editor Labor reporter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an WP:SPA and I would guess WP:COI, has inserted four times — here, here, here, and here — material about Solis that is derogatory and contentious and poorly sourced and given undue weight. Three of the cites supposedly supporting this material are from labor union advocacy websites, which are not even close to being WP:RS. The fourth cite is a WP:PRIMARY transcript that contains a mention of a minor work rules issue being raised at a town hall meeting. No mainstream newspaper or other WP:RS has reported at all on this supposed matter. Yet User:Labor reporter believes it deserves two paragraphs in the Solis article, and in three of the edits it was accompanied by a spurious photograph of an inflatable rat. I have explained at length to this editor why these sources and material additions are no good at User talk:Wasted Time R#Labor stuff, but he or she is willfully not getting it. (The discussion was held there because this editor has made the same edits to the United States Department of Labor article.) I have now run out of reverts on this matter, and am looking for BLP assistance. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Silvy de Bie

Resolved

 – subject is still alive, vandalism removed

Silvy de Bie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The most recent edit has added in a line about this singer dying on March 21, 2010, however there are no sources linked and Googling doesn't turn up any articles about this person dying. // 65.24.165.255 (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is located at Silvy De Bie. Thank you for pointing out that bit of vandalism which I've removed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've created a redirect for the above capitalisation Nil Einne (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Inge Lynn Collins Bongo

Resolved

 – sent to AFD and speedily deleted

Urgent, please. Inge Lynn Collins Bongo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), currently at AfD but unlikely to be deleted, has contacted OTRS (VRTS ticket # 2010033010056574) and appears to be Ingebongo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Mrs. Bongo states that she is still the wife of President Bongo of Gabon and that the article has mis-identified the subject, also that it is false and inaccurate (though whether due to the identity issue or something else I don't know). Please help with investigation and cleanup, especially if you have library access to sources and good French (I believe Gabon is Francophone). Guy (Help!) 20:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

We can't use documents hosted on Scribd as sources in a BLP, can we? Can the facts ascribed to copies of documents hosted on Scribd be verified in any other manner? If not, I believe we should remove all information which can only be sourced in that manner. Yworo (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Er, I don't know, is the short answer. I don't think there's any suggestion these are falsified and the original cites are given. Can anyone validate them? Guy (Help!) 20:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The bigger issue is why we're using a court document as the one and only source for a bankruptcy proceeding Nil Einne (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

IMO nothing uploaded to Scribd is a reliable source, if anyone wants to use that site as a citation they need to ask at the WP:RSN . I also agree with Nil Einne, a single primary court document is not enough to add content. Off2riorob (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the bankruptcy section and sourced the rest directly to the Senate document rather than the copy on Scribd. Yworo (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• That is a primary source (see WP:NOR). Please replace with a reliable independent secondary source or remove any material so sourced. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 21:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Strike the above, I did it myself since m'learned friends are believed to be watching. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If the lawyers are watching, and consensus is clearly snowing to delete, I think it would be good if an admin could just snow-close this now. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The world may be watching but any weakly cited and disputable content has already been removed, what is left is not really controversial at all, snow closures are not in favour as I know, they remove the authority of allowing the process to run its course. Off2riorob (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

150 changes to BLP policy in the last week, mostly by one editor, with few people discussing or overseeing

The editor seems to have a lot of chutzpa.[29]

I really think this ought to be overseen. I can count the number of editors discussing all this on the fingers of my hands.

There seems to be a little ownership of the changes going on. -- Rico 21:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the BLP noticeboard and not a policy or guideline discussion page, please take any issues you may have to the relevant location, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the perfect place for a BLP notice. -- Rico 22:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing issues with biographies of living people. These may include editing disputes and cases where contributors are repeatedly adding troublesome material over an extended period." ← If you have an issue with edits to a policy page, use the policy talk page. That's why it's there. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue with biographies of living people. -- Rico 22:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but in such cases what editors usually do is come here and neutrally present a link to the discussion allowing and encouraging interested editors the opportunity to contribute to the discussion there, coming here with all that chutzpah stuff kind of muddies the issue, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you're confusing the requirement to neutrally word an RfC, or a request for a Third opinion, or what. Editors don't usually come here and neutrally make presentations.

People usually come here with an agenda, they don't try to hide it, and I don't blame them. It took us two seconds to get over to the mathematician's BLP and deal with the egregious BLP violation the mathematician asked about here.

If he'd written something neutral, we might not have been so lightning fast.

Furthermore, I don't take a position on whether the editor's lion's share of 150 edits in the last week were good or not.

I do think it's important for the community to know that an editor that has a lot of nerve is in the middle of making tons of changes to a major Wikipedia policy.

I have reason to believe that this editor may not be committed to BLP, or other policies for that matter.

I'm just concerned that so many changes have been made with so little consensus or oversight.

When many changes to a major Wikipedia policy are made, more eyes would give me greater confidence that there is wider consensus among Wikipedians.

Rather than being excessively bold here, why don't you go have a look yourself, and see if you agree with the hundreds of changes made recently? -- Rico 23:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

ec.Well if you insist but this noticeboard at the top says this..This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing issues with biographies of living people. These may include editing disputes and cases where contributors are repeatedly adding troublesome material over an extended period. It is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly not the place to discuss changes to BLP policy, and I agree it's technically OT, IMHO it's acceptable to link to the policy or its talk page if there are many undiscussed controversial changes and/or some active discussion in need of wider feedback because BLP policy is obviously going to be of great interest to people in the BLP/N. I do agree that it would have been better to word the comment more neutrally to avoid offence or dispute or people getting the idea the editor is coming here with an agenda/vendetta Nil Einne (talk) 06:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Desmond Travers

Desmond Travers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), he was part of a UN commission that found evidence of war crimes by both sides in the Gaza conflict, so predictably the Israeli press are attacking him. I removed a controversy section [30] following VRTS ticket # 2010040410022835 as being sourced from primary and partisan sources ("Israeli press attacks X, source Israeli press") and left a note on the talk page stating that any coverage of controversy should be from the standpoint of coverage of the controversy itself, should it be deemed such, in reliable independent sources with a reputation for at least trying to be impartial in this area. I also advised our correspondent to register an account, told him where to find this noticeboard and advised him to edit the talk page not the article, other than to fix obvious vandalism. This is a classic: [31] Guy (Help!) 22:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Article appears to have stabilized, I have added it to my watchlist. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert Tatham (2nd nomination)

I've just opened an AfD which I think raises some BLP issues so am posting it here in case anyone has any input either way. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Silviu Ionescu

Resolved

 – deleted G10

• Silviu Ionescu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I came across this page while reviewing requests at WP:WHITELIST. The article concerns me but I don't have the time today that it needs to review it carefully. // A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• User:Ronald2010\Silviu Ionescu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - see this page also. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Jiang Zemin and Luo Gan

Jiang Zemin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - There is a dispute on the addition of one source in the article [32]. The source claimed that an Argentinian judge has issued an arrest warrant on Jiang Zemin, former premier of China, and former Politburo member Luo Gan over their role in the repression of Falun Gong (a case itself initiated by FLG). My issue with the addition is that web searches on the supposed cases netted no results outside of Falun Gong media such as the Epoch Times [33] [34]. There is little verifibility and significant coverage of the event in the mainstream media outside of two articles [35] [36], and Falun Gong itself is known to pull off stunts like this. // PCPP (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• It sounds as if this is significant in the context of Falun Gong but rather less so in the context of Jiang. "A lawyer for [Falun Gong] acknowledged it is largely symbolic", which it is. Guy (Help!) 15:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Resolved

Considerable publicity has been given to emails which climate change sceptics allege show professional misconduct by a number of named scientists, most prominently Phil Jones. A longstanding summary in the lead section noted both the allegations and the views of academics, climate change researchers and independent reports which stated that most or all of the allegations were baseless.[37] Some editors took exception to following the description in sources of those making the allegations as climate change skeptics, and editors endeavoured to find improved wording and discuss it on the article talk page,[38] However, on editor seems to hold a radically different view of BLP which involves deleting all content in the lead reporting the views that accusations are to a greater or lesser extent baseless, leaving only the allegations made by the climate skeptics.[39] Very slow progress is being made at Way forward to reach a consensus, but the editor editwarred to remove the balancing views which I believe are essential, and as involved editors are inhibited by the 1RR restriction, balance has not been restored. I remain very concerned about this unresolved BLP and NPOV issue in the lead section of a prominent article, and would welcome outside views. . . dave souza, talk 15:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved outsider, I am curious as to why 1RR would inhibit the restoration of balance. If there are more editors on one side of the debate, and each has 1RR restriction, wouldn't their combined weight override a single nay-sayer? What am I missing? Crum375 (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There was someone who went to 3 or 4 R for some reason and got blocked. But his/her final changes were undone about 20 minutes after the last edit so I'm not very sure. Perhaps some more changes were needed but everyone who could had already done 1R Nil Einne (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The questionable changes in the 4R were only partly undone at the time: findings by MPs were restored, but not balance in the first paragraph. Discussions at the "Way forward" section showed no great obstacle, and a version put forward there and reiterated in a No case to answer section led to sufficient agreement to reinstate reasonable balance once 1RR permitted. The editor who went to 4R accepted this version on return from the block. It's still under question (on the talk page) if we're giving too much detail in the lead of accusations which third parties have found to be baseless, it should be possible to resolve that in normal talk page discussions. . . dave souza, talk 07:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Andrew_Rankin

Resolved

Andrew_Rankin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'm concerned about negative, apparently unsourced info in this article. It does look like there are 'external links' that should be references, so possibly it can be fixed up. I don't have the time to resolve it myself right now, but I think it warrants some attention, hence raising it here.  Chzz  ►  15:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• The page did not explain what distinguishes this individual form anyone else convicted for similar crimes (WP:CSD#A7), had nothing other than negative content with no sources obviously available to provide anything to remedy that (WP:CSD#G10 and WP:GNG) and was about an individual apparently known only for a single event (WP:BLP1E). I have deleted it. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Rob Enderle

Resolved

 – Small rewrite

Criticism section suffers from POV, OR and WEIGHT issues. I know nothing about technology and microsoft/apple criticisms. Please someone take this and watch it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Jackie Sherrill

Jackie_Sherrill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A couple of weeks back now, I noticed a section of this article added by an anonymous editor that was completely unsourced and written in a "behind the scenes story as told by insiders" way which seemed extremely POV. I removed it, noting its deficiencies in my comment, and it stood for approximately a week before being added back by, I assume, the same anonymous user (similar by slightly different IP). This time it included a source that 1) was posted under the notice that the items on the page were merely rumors and the poster wouldn't vouch for them 2) didn't actually cover most of the information in the paragraph in question. I once again removed it, and noted on the talk page my problems with the particular section. Since then, I've received no feedback from the user on the talk page, but we're approaching a revert war (a revert each way every couple of days since). Since it's an anonymous user, I can't contact them directly to pursue a discussion, so I was hoping for some guidance. Erusdruidum (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)