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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:43, 23 January 2011

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Talk pages

Is it appropriate for an editor to refactor a talk page discussion to remove assertions of criminality, when the assertion of criminality is relevant to the discussion? In other words, if he didn't do it, no article, and if he did do it, probably article? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The talk pages in question, so far, are Talk:Jared Lee Loughner and Talk:2011 Tucson shooting. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this point stating that is stating fact, which means it cannot violate BLP; otherwise, we would have to remove all references of Charles Manson's crimes from his page, etc. Toa Nidhiki05 22:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manson was found guilty. Otherwise, his page would say that he was "charged with" x, y and z and the result of the trial. Instead, as a result of the trial, have a look at what Charles Manson actually says. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you're essentially arguing is that Wikipedia should always trust the court system; if that is so, then we should remove all 'contentious' accusations against ruthless dictators from their pages. This man is guilty, and it is so widely sourced it is ridiculous. Toa Nidhiki05 22:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying is that the material is contentious and unsourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am bowing out of this discussion at this point, unless directly questioned. The material on Talk:Jared Lee Loughner has been restored by another editor. I am leaving it in the capable hands of this noticeboard. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. Who's next? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this thing on? - SummerPhD (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without a pointer to the specific discussion that was removed, it could be tricky to discuss this in the abstract. Real-world BLP concerns are often a lot more clear than generalized discussions. But overall, as long as the discussion is on topic (cogent and reasonably related to improving the article) there is no BLP rationale for removing it. The guy just killed six people, seems to have planned it out, and people are observing that he is obviously insane and speculating about the broad implications. He is probably the subject of a million different online discussions, most far less respectful than ours here. For us to discuss this on a Wikipedia article talk page frequented by editors and not the general public for purposes of writing encyclopedic content about him is not going to further tarnish his reputation, form the basis for a lawsuit against Wikipedia or its editors, or otherwise hurt him. That he is innocent until proven guilty is a matter of American criminal law procedure, not a question of sourcing or respect for living people. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"people are observing that he is obviously insane and speculating about the broad implications" shouldn't those be your clues? COD psychologists, are no more capable of providing reliable information than the guy on the bus. Armchair pundits speculating about the speculation, in the snug seems a little bizarre. John lilburne (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are not saying "The guy just killed six people... (and) is obviously insane". Reliable sources are saying he is suspected of killing six people. There's more than a bit of difference. This is contentious. So what? He's guilty, right? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid that's not the case. The sources do say he was the gunman, and they do say that it is clear he has some severe mental problems. As well as sources can source anything, they've sourced that. When they are talking about the criminal procedure they say he is accused, when they talk about the mental health system they describe his place in it, etc. We would have to be careful in how we describe it in the article. Merely calling him a suspect doesn't cut it. But we cannot say out and out that he did it (it isn't our place to make such a declaration). None of that matters. We're discussing the talk page, and for purposes of improving the article we can discuss his criminal culpability, mental state, etc. Again, I haven't seen the specific material removed, but as a general matter we have to be able to talk about the subject of the article in order to write about it. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at one of the sources and apparently smoking marijuana most days is common enough pastime in Arizona, really? That article also quotes someone saying "he was really fascinated with semantics and how the world is really nothing" truly fascinating as that sort of think can be heard by most pot smoking 18-22 year olds, and a good number of those in their 30s-90s too. Quite simple that one article is not a reliable source with regards to anything other than what people said, and is probably spun too. John lilburne (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question was;"Is it appropriate for an editor to refactor a talk page discussion to remove assertions of criminality, when the assertion of criminality is relevant to the discussion?" In this case it was not appropriate. Maybe this question is better answered on a case by case basis. 1 of my comments was redacted and it really felt bizarre and unexpected; maybe this is something someone should get some kind of consensus agreement before doing (to a lot of different comments)? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion", WP:BLP - SummerPhD (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct about the words, but that raises 3 points:

1: "contentious"? maybe not.
2: virtually none of our language on the talk pages is sourced and thus "unsourced or poorly sourced" is moot,I think
3: There are lots of Reliable Sources using the word "murder"(which is what you redacted from my talk page comment).

I am very much with you in principle and I urge you to have a look at [1] which I think is much more relevant to the points you make. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the relevence to the Assange article to this issue. Allegations have been made about Assange, we report the fact. He denies the allegations, and we report the fact too. We are making no assumptions of innocence or guilt there, per Wikipedia policy (and per libel law, and common sense). What is being asked is that the same thing should be done on the Loughner etc talk pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guy is not going to sue Wikipedia for discussing coverage of the event, nor is anything we say on the article talk page going to materially affect his reputation. Getting the article wrong because we cannot have a reasonable discussion about it could actually do some slight amount of harm to the world. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that Loughner has been accused of murder is factual, and cannot be a problem. Stating that he is a murderer is prejudging the legal process, and potentially libellous. It isn't our job to decide innocence or guilt. And neither is it necessary to make such a judgement to write an article. Regardless of how 'clear-cut' an individual case is, once people on Wikipedia talk pages start making such assumptions, they are laying both themselves and the WikiMedia Foundation open to legal action (and incidentally, engaging in WP:OR). Frankly, I think that people who can't understand this simple point would do better to avoid getting involved in articles like this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Can we get real for a minute? It doesn't pass the straight face test to think he may not be the shooter, that discussing the obvious on the article talk page could harm him, or that Wikipedia has any legal liability over this. Wikipedia reports sourced information as to all facts about the world, not all facts as filtered through the lens of the American criminal justice system. It serves that aim to discuss article content frankly and openly on the talk page rather than engaging in disclaimers and formalities of avoidance. Original research is not an issue here either. I understand this point just fine, thank you. Again, nobody has pointed out the comment in question so this is all academic at this point. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the words that were redacted from the talk page. The justifications given here for such unilateral redaction of good faith discussion certainly don't pass the straight face test (that's a good term). On the positive side, I think this episode is a good canary in the coal mine early warning that censorship is creeping into areas of public discourse, like right here on Wikipedia discussion pages, it hitherto feared to tread; so everyone has some time to decide whether or not to be compliant. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP is our policy. You have a choice, comply with it or go somewhere else. If you feel all of the material I removed fails the "straight face test", I invite you to repeatedly add it to the article. It will be repeatedly removed. The idea that talk pages are somehow exempt from WP:BLP does not pass the "reading the policy test". - SummerPhD (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok; I hear you, but,the benign material you removed was reinserted by another Editor and remains there, so I'm not sure what you're talking about with "repeatedly add"; in my case it was the 1 word "murder" on the talk page which you redacted and has since been restored and archived. Also, this disagreement is a matter of interpretation of BLP policy rather than willingness to adhere to it, at least from my end. Its unfortunate if you have a different impression. I am not suggesting that you exit Wikipedia because your interpretation may be different from mine. Also, its important to not misread; I said that the "justifications" for removal didn't pass the straight face test, not "all the material". In re-reading what I said above, I do apologise if my words and tone were combative or annoying in any way(although you graciously didn't say that); that is definitely something I must improve on. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

gillian gamble

Hi there I am the subject of this article but would rather it was removed as i feel it is irrelevant, not to mention some of the details being inaccurate. I proposed it for deletion but it was reverted. Please can it be deleted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.74.246 (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you seem to have extended the seven day delete prod by another seven days - the subject has won a couple of awards but is presently of relative minor note - I don't see that article improvement would help much,..thought anyone? The prod doesn't seem to have been contested so it could be speedied without waiting another seven days, unless someone thinks there is value in keeping it? Off2riorob (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per user request and because not notable. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have (somewhat boldly) deleted this one. The prod had been up for 10 days with no objection; the article is on the margins of our criteria, and I am assuming GF that this is the subject who is requesting deletion. --Kateshortforbob _talk 11:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Rattner

I am concerned that some of the information in Steven Rattner violates WP:NPOV, WP:SYN, and WP:BLP. Specifically, it's the last two sentences of the Personal section, which specifically calls out the person who introduced him and his current wife, as well as one particular person he used to date. It is my belief that this information is being included to imply an improper relationship, because of their relationship to the New York Times. I'm especially concerned that there is simply no reason to mention that he "briefly dated" someone, given that said someone is a person with a highly negative reputation as a journalist. Another editor states (see Talk:Steven Rattner) that because the information is verified, it should be included. Thoughts? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a person briefly dates someone unless there are additional details that specifically effect their life it is not notable - lists of the dates people of had etc, of no note in their biography, engagements and established relationships of note get a mention but less than that is trivia - As is who they were introduced by cited to some obscure book, with no added detail, so? What is notable about that? It hasn't been reported anywhere in the press? It asserts something that is not written - some kind of unspoken conspiracy issue which readers can only imagine. User:Joysent explains the unspoken conspiracy WP:SYN in an edit summary it's important, especially considering Times coverage of Rattner pension pay-to-play scandal. - User:Becritical removed the briefly dated comment and on investigation I removed the obscurely cited introduced by content as trivia.Off2riorob (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These verifiable facts illustrate Rattner's strong social ties to the New York Times. Perhaps this would be better accomplished with a sentence such as "Rattner is a close friend of Arthur Sulzberger, Jr, the publisher of the New York Times." The Washington Post sees fit to cite this information in its profile on WhoRunsGov, yet illustrative details are called unimportant trivia here. Your allegations of a "conspiracy theory" are also bogus. There is nothing secret about Rattner's friendship with Sulzberger, and saying this is important when considering coverage of the pension scandal is not implying that there was any conspiracy at the Times. On the contrary, I though the Times' frequent front page coverage of the issue was remarkable, considering these institutional ties to Rattner. But that is just my personal opinion. You can conclude whatever you like, I'm just trying to put relevant facts out there. Joysent (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for commenting Joysent, it still sounds like trivia and unspoken synthesis to me that WT article is about 4 pages long, I struggled to find the name you mentioned I imagine he has lots of friends and I just don't see that its worth adding in his notable details of his life story, like its his friend, so ? do they go on holiday or something at least to explain what is noteworthy about it. It sounds like investigative journalism to me when you say your desired addition serves to, "illustrate Rattner's strong social ties to the New York Times" - I am even less impressed with the desired addition. Off2riorob (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Sulzberger friendship is already noted in the Rattner article. Yes, I'm sure he has many friends, but his friendship with Sulzberger has been noted by numerous publications, including, as it turns out, Wikipedia. I'm not sure why you have become so absorbed by this, as you seem to have very little familiarity with this topic. I'm also not sure what you are advocating for and on what grounds. Joysent (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Morrow

Resolved

I SAW HER IN AN EPISODE OF THE "LAWMAN" SHE PLAYED THE ROLE OF MELANIE WELLS, 1962 THE EPISODE WAS ENTITLED "THE BRIDE" DR. J. CALVIN ALBERTY JO MORROW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.68.103 (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can only suggest you add it to the article complete with a WP:RS - this noticeboard is not for requesting such additions to articles, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pradip Baijal

The current version of the page protected is not neutral, and is libelous. It promotes the point of view being pushed by Ashlonerider; who is a politically motivated editor who has a history of working on biographies of Indian politicians and government officers. Please revert back to a more neutral version which does not promote a view on Mr.Baijal and sticks to facts. He is one of the most distinguished and successful officers of the Indian Administrative Service. While some controversies have happened recently, none of the conclusions are correct. Let us not try to destroy the reputation of an officer who has served the country for 40 years - based on a Wiki editor's view on what is a very complicated issue in India. I would suggest introducing a neutrally worded protected page; as the current version is biased and defamatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.75.195.178 (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to pradipbaijal.com should also be made, as it at least lays out all the achievements and history regarding Mr Baijal's biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.75.195.178 (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left user Ashlonerider a note to let him know his additions have been mentioned here. I had a look at his contributions and they do appear to have been adding a lot of accusatory speculation. Off2riorob (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. First off I am amused by the references made by the original unidentified IP complainants about my editing other political articles. That has no relevance to this debate because the Pradip Baijal is not a politician but retired as a civil servant. It is important to remember, that the said article on Pradip Baijal has been the target of repeated vandalism by 2 users and a number of IP-based users. The attempt each time was to eliminate the controversies section and focus ONLY on the positive aspects. Further the users in question refused to come on the talk page or to respond to queries raised on their talk pages and instead resorted to edit wars forcing me to apply for a lock: the second of which expires today. The reference to "juniors like us" in one of the vandalised edits is I believe a give-away on who these individuals may be. As for the controversies section: The said individual has had an illustrious career and this has been CLEARLY mentioned in the "Accomplishments" section. However the end of his career has been controversial. And this is not opinion but fact backed up by the fact that the individual has been the subject of investigation by agencies investigating into the Telecom and other scams. I believe in the interest of neutrality and indeed of completeness, an article on an individual must mention both the accomplishments as well as controversies if any without attempts to justify either. All the controversies mentioned, have been backed up with with the relevant links provided to media coverage of the incident and so does not constitute grounds for either libel or defamation. If anything, similar references need to be provided for many claims being made in the "accomplishments" section. The fact remains that the individual remains deeply mired in controversy at this point and is the subject of an investigation by authorities and has been questioned repeatedly as well had his houses raided. This is not "speculation" but reality known to everyone and backed up links to media articles. Are we saying that this entire part should be ignored and edited out and the focus should be on the positives only? Would this be neutrality? There has been a sustained attempt on the part of some individuals to edit out these negative references. Such attempts are clearly vandalism and should be penalised not condoned. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlonerider (talk • contribs) 13:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that your addition imo have been to add such speculative allegations that has created the reason for users to come and reduce the speculative content, your suggestions that it is all the others are vandals is undue, the content looks to me like it needs a NPOV write as soon as possible. Off2riorob (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The additions made are not speculative, but taken from published articles from reputed media houses. It is NOT Original Research. Details of this discussion can be found on the talk page of the said article. I am calling it vandalism because the edits being made are selective (again details clearly mentioned on the talk page). Further the users in question have consistently ignored the requests to sort out the matter on the talk page and instead resorted to edit wars as soon as the locks were removed. Infact 2 such selective edits have happened on the page today after the lock was removed: both by unidentified IP's. I think a NPOV edit can be done, however there should be no deletion of valid content unless it can be proved that the content put there is illegal or libelous in any manner. Negative aspects of an individual need also to be covered as long as they are not speculative but backed by reliable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlonerider (talk • contribs) 10:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

douglas harper

This person doesn't seem notable enough to warrant a biographical entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.60 (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to Douglas Harper? It could maybe do with a better reference or two, but it looks fine to me. -- role^player 13:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure. It might be better to merge Harper into Online Etymology Dictionary. From a quick initial glance I don't know that I see notability as an author or historical outside of his work with the dictionary, but someone more knowledgeable might want to tackle this.Griswaldo (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm pretty certain he doesn't meet WP:PROF so that's that out. But as the author of the above dictionary he is cited 139 times at Google scholar and gets 44 hits at Google books. Douglas Harper without reference to the OED gets about 450 and 320 respectively, which alludes to some degree of notability outside the Online Etymology Dictionary. It's pretty near the threshold, but I think there's something there. As I say it needs better referencing. -- role^player 22:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Etnier

SHOULD BE TAGGED FOR SPEEDY DELETION? Is a possible autobiography w/COAs - see edits by John Etnier as well as IP addresses close to this one (from Maine on Road Runner ISP) (NPOV)- Neutral point of view is NOT maintained - (NOR)- Appears to possibly contain Original Research - Notes are presented as part of References and NONE of the notes/references can be verified. The single reference/note that appears to be verifiable is a link to music store site ecstaticpeace.com - Byron Coley, one of the owners of the store is also quoted in the main body. That link takes the reader to another link . (V)- Verifiability is NOT present - The other reference/notes have no verification or site OCLC Online Computer Library Center, but follow-up reveals none of the material is available... "If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." A7. No indication of importance. There are MANY musicians in and from Maine and the US who have as much or more published material. Volume of work is not indicative of importance. Neither is being from wealth and having a famous and talented father. The inclusion in WIKI is what is most notable about this particular person for the average American reader... A9. No indication of importance (musical recordings). "The Same Band" ?? G11. Contains Unambiguous advertising and self-promotion. See ALL of the EXTERNAL LINKS -74.75.249.135 (talk) 05:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- The article has been tagged for speedy, seems a bit extreme to me, its been around for a year, a prod might have been better to allow anyone interested to address the problems raised.a local band with a small degree of note - Maine - if anyone is interested enough to remove the speedy. Off2riorob (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm pretty sure it's not a WP:CSD#G11 because it doesn't come across as unambiguous advertising, and WP:CSD#A9 doesn't apply here because the article isn't about an album or musical recording, it's about a person. The problem with proving or disproving WP:CSD#A7 is that none of the references are easily verifiable. But there are references and claims to notability, and speedy deletions have been turned down in the past on a lot less. I too would support swapping the speedy tag for a prod. -- role^player 14:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully: There needs to be some discussion before a perfunctory fundamental change this edit!

We are an IP but certainly familiar with this. Again, most every guideline regarding what WIKI is and does is violated here. Several criteria for speedy deletion have been very clearly demonstrated. This article has no reasonable chance of surviving unbiased discussion. "In this context, "speedy" refers to the simple decision-making process, not the length of time since the article was created."

This is an autobiography. Please review WIKI guidelines Regarding This Topic specifically:"Articles that exist primarily to advance the interests of the contributor will likely be deleted."

I also would refer you to the WIKI policies on Biographies of living persons [[2]]. This article violates most if not all of the major guidelines listed there. The autobiography is presented as a hybrid of topics--

WP:CSD#G11 is at least germane as this is clearly a "self-promotion" Conflict of Interest. Please refer to the WIKI Guidelines on [COIs ].
WP:CSD#A9 is also germane as the article is primarily about an obscure discography. There is not a clearly specific tag for this particular instance, and remember that, there are no rules only guidelines and common sense.

WP:CSD#MULTI is correct and the deletion of that tag should be reversed.

Because this has been around for some time is actually MORE cause for speedy removal, certainly not less!! The author/subject is a marketing professional as per information he's provided in the article and in sites to which he has provided as "outside links". All 3 of these links are sites directly selling his personal goods and services.
This is a clear and substantial COI - He actually uses the WIKI article he created as a reference for potential customers Right here.. If this was an organic incarnation of the page, created because there is merit, support and verifiable documentation for such, that would be one thing, but this is simply another page he has created and is using to self promote.

This should have been posted as a proposal before being written by the original author/editor ABOUT himself! This article has no chance of surviving reasoned and unbiased discussion, demonstrating not one, but several clear criteria for speedy deletion. Further, it serves to imbue undue importance upon a single individual who holds no significant place even in the relatively small, but coherent community of the music industry from the Southern Maine area. In this way it has also become a well-promoted disparagement of the real depth of that community. To that point speedy deletion is also harm reduction. We're reinstating speedy deletion tag based on the above and the hope is that this proper WIKI procedure will not again be interrupted, it means that there will be correct process and if there is deletion, we know that it is not necessarily permanent. 74.75.249.135 (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few points that you need to bear in mind:

At Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion it states: Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page. - As I'm a registered editor who patrols recent changes regularly I know the speedy deletion criteria quite well, and therefore am within my right to remove the speedy tag if I think the article doesn't fit the category.
The wording of WP:CSD#G12 states: Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. - that doesn't cover this article, which is written in an encyclopedic style. Someone may have been using it to promote themselves, but that doesn't mean it's promotional.
The wording of WP:CSD#A9 states: An article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant and where the artist's article does not exist (both conditions must be true). - this article is not solely about a musical recording and it is about the artist so it doesn't satisfy this criteria either.
The wording of WP:CSD#A7 states: An article about a real person... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources - this article does say why the subject is significant, it just can't back it up with verifiable sources. As the text says that is outside the bounds of this criteria also.

Therefore the article does not meet the speedy deletion criteria. However that doesn't mean it should be kept, which is why I have proposed the deletion of the article, and have warned the creator of the article that I have done this. I will also continue to watch the article, and will follow the deletion process through according to Wikipedia policy, meaning that if the prod notice is removed without changes being made to the article to my satisfaction, I will nominate it through afd instead.

However as it stands it does not qualify for speedy deletion, and any reviewing admin would have seen that and turned your nomination down. You need to understand that, and the reasons why. -- role^player 00:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your points to remember Roleplayer- This seems to be looking like a struggle of personalities of sorts or perhaps an edit war, and that is not productive. We should try for some resolution here. While we wait for that, here is a different position, again submitted respectfully in disagreement with yours.
Your rights are certainly acknowledged, but sometimes exercise of such rights are counter-productive.

Please be assured, there are rights on this side that have not been exercised because these may be counter to the intent and spirit of WIKI-
There has been and will continue to be restraint on this end.
Please, do not instruct as to what is "needed" to be understood. This is your understanding and it is acknowledged as legitimate, but most often a point of view is not a singularity.
There is no fundamental lack of understanding demonstrated on either side, there is however a difference of opinion - it will be more productive to work with that in mind.
You have pointed out guidelines(rules) to support your position, but let's not forget the 5th pillar-
Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule...
It is still believed that the criteria have been more than met- an autobiographical article of this nature should not have been permitted to start, and being used as it has been it should not exist. There certainly exists a good deal of precedent and guidelines to support these assertions. More importantly, the spirit and intent of WIKI has been transgressed in several important ways, as pointed out.
The article in question is not solely about any one thing, and looking at the 5th pillar, there are no rules. Common sense, and the intent of WIKI, not the letter of guidelines must prevail.
No matter the formatting, the article was created for and is being used as; promotion for personal services, vanity and monetary gain!
Please point out the indication of significance? It seems to be based on recordings presented in the article. What are the particular and specific assertions of significance?
It all seems quite common from the view point of persons who have direct experience and a deep understanding regarding the music industry in Maine over the last 40 years. Do you have this? If so why do you not reveal that connection? If not, perhaps you might consider deferment to a much more authoritative source? What he lists as accomplishments have been superseded by many in the same environment and time period and are not considered of note by the local, regional or national community. Seriously, where is the significance in any of the material presented?
The article could have been deleted or stripped of much of the content, but has not been and will not from here. We have at least 2 well established accounts that could do so, but because this is coming from a location and knowledge base that could be construed as having a COI - it is preferred to have ADMIN take a look.
Unfortunately, this process seems to have been subjugated for whatever reason(s). On the talk page, comments have been compressed with formatting stripped- this renders the text much less accessible and readable. To that point- the rational has not been clearly read even once by that editor, (or perhaps any?)- "it" posts an internal link suggesting this IP should review the contents of such... That same link is posted as reference in the very text being changed, challenged and critiqued. Seems to perhaps be less than good faith-
The same approach, style and actions as have been used by this Roleplayer account here...
Let's try to be productive, if you must change formatting by someone who is more concerned with progress than prettiness, please do not simply strip spacing thus rendering solid blocks of text making the information much less accessible for readers. Consider insertion of a couple of symbols- take the same effort. This exact same reformatting has been done on the talk page- by what is apparently a different and unconnected editor? Let's try to stay with the intent of WIKI and not the letter- to be productive.

Putting the editing contention aside, Why do you think this article belongs on WIKI for even another day? Thanks for your productive reply to this question. 74.75.249.135 (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you now appear to be accusing me of something and I'm not even entirely sure what I'm being accused of: The same approach, style and actions as have been used by this Roleplayer account here... I'm taking the same stance as User:Off2riorob: WP:TLDR. It would take up way more of my time than I am willing to forego in order to understand what your problem is with me so I'm going to watch the article, follow proper process until it's either vastly improved or deleted, and that's my involvement in this situation ended. Thank you. -- role^player 12:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review these comments you apparently see as TLDR. It is unfortunate that it's felt your reply needed to focus on a single point near the end of this TLDR... Least germane to the real issue here. Please accept all apologies for any impression you may have that there was implied criticism. This is only accurate observation, it is quite direct and pointed and requires no time to understand- your procedure/methods are questioned. Seriously, how can you conscientiously edit, post or even comment if you don't have time to read a couple of paragraphs?

From the top of the page ["TLDR Page"]: " As a label, it is also effective as a tactic which thwarts the kinds of discussion which are essential in collaborative editing. TL;DR is a shorthand observation very much like the complaint that Mozart's music has too many notes. The label is used to end discussion rather than engaging it. "
It has thus been used by both of you.

This particular log seems to be drifting away from proper ["Wikiquette"] on both sides. Proactively, let's try to focus on a few of those points;

Work towards agreement.
Argue facts, not personalities.
Do not make misrepresentations.
Do not ignore questions

You stated "this article does say why the subject is significant" could you please elaborate- where and how is this accomplished?
Again, Why do you think this article belongs on WIKI for even another day? Thanks for your productive F/U to these questions.--74.75.249.135 (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bryna Aisin Gioro

Fake Profile: Bryna Aisin Gioro has unverified sources that link to spam sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sn0wTigressJ0 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out: none of the sources appear to be relevant to the subject, so I have gone ahead and proposed the article for deletion. If no sources are found within 10 days, the article should be deleted. --Kateshortforbob _talk 11:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Bakhshi

Would some folks take a look at this BLP article, please, of a NYC nightclub promotor? Several apparent SPAs keep attempting to add unsourced negative information about the clubs and the person, in the process removing sourced information without explanation, while other apparent SPAs seems as if they might be connected to the subject. I've reverted them so often over the last four months (the article seems to have very few watchers) that the history might give the appearance that I've got ownership issues, whereas I don't really care about the subject much at all, I'm just trying to keep it in line with policy -- I cleared out a bunch of overly-promotional material from it not too long ago.

I've put warning tags on the SPAs talk page, but there's ~~never~~ rarely any response (and they don't use edit summaries) and the behavior continues. Some additional watchers would be appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jakartajones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- approx. 24 of 66 edits to this article, remainder to related articles (i.e. Ivy Supersonic)
Patricknyc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- 6 of 8 edits are to this article
Theparker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- 2 edits, all to this article
Jjghj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- 5 edits, all to this article
Stephyu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- 3 edits, all to this article
Hunter345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- 8 of 24 edits to this article, remainder to related articles (i.e. Ivy Supersonic)
Debvan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- only edit is to this article
Editor1398 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- created article, other 2 edits are to the article
67.88.44.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- all 2 edits to this article
67.88.44.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- all 37 edits to this article
67.88.44.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- all 3 edits to this article
67.88.44.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) -- all 6 edits to this article

Taking a closer look, it seems as if there are two blocs here, one pro-Bakhshi (the IPs, Editor1398, Debvan, Patricknyc, Jjghj, Stephyu, Theparker) and one anti-Bakhshi (Hunter345, Jakartajones). One keeps adding info, the other keeps removing it. Between them, they've done almost all the editing to the article, with the exception of myself and some one-off edits from others. [3] I assume Jakartajones has been reverting me because he assumes I'm another in a line of pro-Bakhshi editors.

I'd file two SPIs for this obvious sock- or meatpuppetry, but I believe most of the data would be stale. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

charles phu

Poorly referenced article indicate that the biography could be promotion or marketing related. A wider search on Charles Phu on the internet does not indicate that a biograpy is useful or required on Wikipedia. Could moderators please take a look at the article to verify if it is self-promotion. (unsigned report was from User:1981editor - added by Off2riorob (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

A quick Google search finds some mentions of him as architect and set designer which suggest he meets minimum notability requirements. "Only a few days ago, the Russian media reported that RMJM architect Charles Phu mentioned at a public meeting that the firm is in regular receipt of ‘memoranda’ from Vladimir Putin personally, ‘encouraging’ them to go ahead with the project despite the controversy." http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/pavel-stroilov/lebedevs-tangled-web Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israel and the apartheid analogy

In the ongoing dispute over the name and scope of this article, one protagonist now claims that the state of Israel " is a legal personality in international law, and any unsourced claims of a crime committed by this legal person would, or should, from legal point of view, also come under the same WP:BLP policy."[4] Would a regular of this page care to disabuse her/him of this absurd notion? RolandR (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- its completely ridiculous at least here at wikipedia the country Israel is not for the benefit of BLP policy a person. Off2riorob (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that individually living persons are not to be slandered in Wikipedia because they may take that to court, but when taken collectively as a country, Wikipedia editors can slander as many people as they want with no fear of legal repercussions? The Wikipedia legal representatives do not recognise international law as binding? And yet Israel has same legal rights in national law also, and can be taken to court. I'd like a comment from the Wikimedia Foundation. I should also note that the policy is in fact in plural Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, so I gather it applies to groups of notable living persons also, for example Nobel Prize winners, and since the Government of Israel has a number of such persons, and therefore constitutes a group, they are in fact being collectively accused of apartheid crime using contentious material that is...poorly sourcedKoakhtzvigad (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP applies to living people, and to no other entity or thing. It does not apply to dead people, fictional people, companies, or nations. All articles, regardless of topic, should comply with the core content policies of NPOV, NOR, and V. Unverifiable material does not belong in any article. Will Beback talk 22:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that repeatedly causes great surprise, is that the primary purpose of WP:BLP (a policy) is not to protect the Wikimedia Foundation, or individual Wikipedia editors, from litigation. So Koakhtzvigad's point is confused in that respect at least (and probably in other respects). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if we go to WP:BLPGROUP, it says there "A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." Now the "Israel" in the article is really the Cabinet of Israel, which consists of a fairly small group of 30 ministers and nine deputy ministers, all living. At some stage editors need to realize that the allegations made in the article ultimately link to these living people. So what is going to happen when I start adding names to supposed apartheid policies? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Wikipedia is now to exclude any negative commentary about any government, on the basis that it violates international law? Are we going to extend this to non-government organisations too? The Tea Party? WikiLeaks? Hamas?... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just asking if editors realise that behind corporate entities there are living people. It seems unavoidable to mention at some stage the people who are claimed to have instituted and perpetuated apartheid in Israel in the article in question. And, this spans several decades. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 06:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dido (singer)

Trying to follow WP:V and WP:LP, I removed unsourced material (and thereby challenged it) from this article. I did so half a year ago with another BLP, and when other users put it back, my removal was accepted by this admin and the article was protected by another admin at my request. (The next day most content was re-added with sources.)

This time, however, when I asked for protection of the Dido article, the admin instead restored almost all material, including some 1.5-year-old cn-tags and unsourced quotes. Naturally, I find this surprising, and can't help wondering if it mattered to the admin that it was two experienced users, Finn Rindahl and Nymf, who were edit warring against me.

As I understand WP:V and WP:LP, anyone can remove unsourced content from articles, including/especially BLPs. And it's not like it's being deleted; anyone may restore it together with sources. The template uw-unsourced3 says:

Please do not add unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Finn Rindahl had this response: Could you please read WP:LP over again? I'm not adding any unsourced material, only reverting your removal of a third of the content of Dido (singer).

Apparently he thinks there is an importante difference between adding and re-adding unsourced stuff ... In addition, he and Nymf seem to think that the larger the unsourced part of an article is, the less right you have to remove it. Nymf also seems to have some odd thoughts about the importance of WP:REF in this context, and what that policy actually says.

Anyway, if you see someone inserting unsourced info, you can revert and warn the user, but if the unsourced info is already in the article, you can't just remove it? Where's the logic in that?

WP:V says: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed.

So, Wikipedia rules tell me that my edits were OK, but Finn Rindahl, Nymf and admin HJ Mitchell tell me the opposite. Am I interpreting the policy incorrectly? BTW, see this edit by another admin. Dugnad (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Basically it looks like everyone is in their own way following policy and guidelines - HJ Mitchell seems to have restored the content but hidden in preparation for citing and unhiding, this is one used option, another is to move the uncited to the talkpage to allow involved contributors to attempt to cite the content, another method would be to add citation needed to sections of content that require citing. All of these solutions are ok for what we call non controversial uncited content, although if disputed and removed, simple reversion and replacement of the uncited is perhaps one of the least good options. Although a possibilty under BLP to remove anything uncited, that is a pretty extreme solution for non controversial detail, one which is better to avoid imo - just as easy to look for citations and add them or add citation required templates and open a discussion on the talkpage to seek help to find some citations. Discussion is the key to working together here and improving article content, to which I notice you have yet to post on the article talkpage, discuss more there Dugnad as experienced contributors will help and explain their edit and you can also explain your issues with the content. Off2riorob (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced content should be removed if it is considered doubtful, dubious, defamatory, libellous, etc. You just removed anything that lacked sources. I quoted WP:NOCITE at least twice, maybe even three or four times in different venues. It is pretty clear on the issue. I doubt you'll find any support for purging 35% of the article here, rather than using CN tags to actually improve the article. Nymf _hideliho! 00:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Zorich

- Is this enough detail to assert that the subject is an ethnic Croatian, although it isn't clearly stated and requires a smidgen of OR, or at least a combination of sources. If it is, is anyone experienced with footnotes to add the detail and the combined citations, or perhaps the details would be better added in the body of the article? This is a bit of a lingering long term back and forth between Croatian and Bosnian although the ip that is adding Bosnian has made no attempt to explain his reverts. Presently I added Yugoslavian in an attempt end the issue because when the subject was born the country was under that name but apparently this is also incorrect as they would be more accurately described as Austro-Hungarian immigrants, another pair of eyes would be appreciated - Can we use the comment below to assert the subject is an ethnic Croatian? Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Chris Zorich is half Croatian and half African American - his mother was therefore a Croatian - Zora Zorich http://www.chriszorich.org/biography/ - Zora's sister in law was Olympia Dukakis - http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4034185.html - Sometimes Chris Zorich's Uncle Louis and his Aunt Olympia--Olympia Dukakis helped pay Zora's rent http://articles.latimes.com/1991-05-12/sports/sp-2728_1_chris-zorich ... so Zora is the sister of Louis http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20114272,00.html making Louis Zorich ethnically Croatian. .... Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I would be grateful if the editors could make a ruling on this topic, please. Many thanks. Grabovcan (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Antonia Berrios

I don't really know what to do with this. An anonymous user 71.156.141.46 (talk · contribs) and a new user Repberrios (talk · contribs) —probably the same person— have been trying to remove sourced content and replace it with unsourced content to BLP Maria Antonia Berrios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User MikeLynch (talk · contribs) and I have reverted and put some warnings on their talk pages. I don't know whether the article violates the policy, or whether the user is trying to violate or "de-violate" it, so to speak. It surely looks like the user is acting in good faith though. Could someone have a look at this? TIA. DVdm (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a notice about this entry at user Repberrios' talk page. DVdm (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content should be removed. The text violates neutrality. "Questions have been raised about the funding Berrios received when running uncontested in 2002". What questions? By whom? And Fox is not exactly a neutral source here.--Scott Mac 16:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Scott. Your intervention was instructive. DVdm (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Battenberg

This article is about a living person, and presently lacks any reliable sourcing, while making extreme claims. It says the subject is Irish nobility, in contrast to what the Sydney Morning Herald says:[5], [6], [7] and the Scotsman:[8]. Presently it is a BLP lacking a neutral point of view and lacking reliable sourcing (by Wikipedia standards). Someone has Prod'ed it since I began this post, so that would take care of it unless the Prod is removed. Edison (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I have reduced the article to a stub due to the presence of controversial statements about living persons that were incoherently referenced or unreferenced. It would be great if you or someone else could use the references you list to try to improve the article, rather than leaving it to its likely fate of imminent deletion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the article - User:Letshavethetruestory2011 replaced the content - theres a fair bit of attacking content - basically uncited as the couple of blogspots were not reliable, I left the only really reliable cite and stubbed it back to almost nothing. If I was an admin I would speedy delete it, as an unremarkable person but that does not actually describe him. The first section of this http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/28/1048653853635.html tells you all about this person. I left it as a prod, if a passing admin doesn't speedy it, the more or less uncited content attacking judges and and some club in Sydney reporters/the press should really be reverted on sight. Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ali Raza

Hello. The gentleman written about in this article -- Syed Ali Raza -- is my uncle. I can therefore say with authority that several of the statements in this article are INCORRECT: His daughter is not named Alisha, and she is alive and well. The article is also highly incomplete and therefore misleading in other ways. On behalf of my family, I request that it be either amended or entirely removed from Wikipedia. Thank you very much.

I've removed some material from the article, on the grounds of the material in question being unreferenced, potentially controversial, and contested. You may wish to suggest references to add accurate material to the article, on the talk page for the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Morozov (singer)

I'm unable to link the article to the Russian, German and French articles about this artist. I'm also unable to wikify it in the correct way (in the other languages it was no problem, but as the English spelling is different, it's too complicate for me.I need help! Thank you very much!Angelika-Ditha (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth O'Keefe

Resolved

– sockpuppets blocked

Starting with this last AFD there has been a number of single-purpose-accounts, that have repeatedly tried to keep and reinsert content, that is all poorly sourced, and sometimes promotional. Some were proven socks, though not all. But all have a common purpose. Semi-protection reduced it, but Anna O'Leary (talk · contribs) has been the most recent violator. Anna O'Leary was blocked for 48 hours for violating WP:3RR, but as soon as the block lifted, has done it again. The user has made some non-O'Keefe AFD contributions, but those seem to be a token attempt to not appear to be a SPA. I think a longer term block of this user is warranted. --Rob (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content inserted by user Anna O'Leary seems argumentative, not neutral or encyclopedic. Jonathanwallace (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An admin has blocked User:Anna O'Leary and User:Katie Sweetmore indefinately for being sockpuppets. --Rob (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ashanti (entertainer)

Entry is biased, serves subject's commercial gain, and is outdated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.182.175 (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains a couple of questionable statements but otherwise seems par for the course for a pop star in detail and sourcing. Perhaps if you mentioned specific assertions that bother you, you would get more feedback? Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Binayak Sen

Can someone please take a look at this? Indian doctor found guilty of sedition last month. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed discussion of criminal case against individual who has wide support in the international human rights community, sourced to BBC, Human Rights Watch press statements, and to several Indian newspapers. The article may be somewhat sympathetic to Sen but doesn't seem like a puff piece, as it lays out the charges against him and quotes various government officials who believe he is guilty. Did you have more specific concerns? Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Johnson

Alan Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am concerned that there are a number of unsourced negative statements throughout this biography. I also think that the section concerning his time as Shadow Chancellor would not be neutrally weighted even if were sourced. Because Alan Johnson has very recently resigned as Shadow Chancellor, this biography may receive more attention in the near future than it typically might.

I have a conflict of interest in this subject area (and a particular conflict with regards to this article) and so I would be grateful if someone else could review these issues.

CIreland (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editing history shows that a couple of the regulars here have now done some editing on the article as a result of your post. It looks to me as if there are not WP:RS problems, as everything seems to be sourced to BBC, the Guardian, etc. The "Shadow Cabinet" para may still violate WP:UNDUE. It would probably best be repaired by someone who follows British politics, though. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Gerard

This was the last line on Mr. Gerard's biography: "Personal: Jack Gerard has committed his life to serving others and his family as vigorously as he defends the petroleum industry. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#37408577"

I'm not sure how the link "http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#37408577" corresponds to the line about Jack Gerard committed his life to serving others and his family.

Please see the CCAIN Institute page on Jack. There is better biographical information on that page: http://www.ccainstitute.org/who-we-are/our-board-bios/jack-n-gerard.html

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.20.210 (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks I added that citation to the article about his company API. The article has been prodded, really a bold redirect to the American Petroleum Institute might be a good idea, noteworthy CEO, major company ? Off2riorob (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Cornwall South Australian politician

The section about legal claims by Dawn Rowan (headed Controversy) is inaccurate and libellous. Cornwall as Minister convened a panel to report to him about claims of maladministation at the shelter, a quite legilmate and propoer thing for a Minister to do. He released the report once it was completed. Rowan pursued claims in defamation and misfeasance against 10 defendants, inlcuding Cornwall, but she was ultimately unsuccessful (not acknowledged in the entry). The entry implies the case (Cornwall's career was overshadoed by...) was of much greater significance to Cornwall's career and reputaion than it was in fact. The entry should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exhibition08 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

The text in question appears to be based on two reliable sources: ABC and The Age. Are there any sources to refute those two news organizations? —C.Fred (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The story in The Age says "Justice Debelle found that the accusations were a "shocking libel" motivated, in the case of some defendants, by malice (which removed the defence of parliamentary privilege) and found Dr Cornwall guilty of misfeasance (releasing the report under parliamentary privilege knowing it was false).[9] That appears to support the claims that Cornwall was found guilty. —C.Fred (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best additional information I've found so far is the Diamond Valley News (local paper) which states:

JUNE 21, 2002: Supreme Court Justice Bruce Debelle finds the governments, Network Ten and the ABC guilty of defamation and awards Ms Rowan a total of $585,000. He finds Ms Roberts and two other review committee members acted with malice, and Dr Cornwall guilty of misfeasance.

NOVEMBER 2004: The Full Court of the Supreme Court overturns Justice Debelle's finding of defamation against the television stations and the federal government. The ruling of defamation against state government defendants is upheld, but the finding of malice is overturned.

I'll see if I can find some more, but my question concerns "...but the finding of malice is overturned". Would this mean that the finding of "misfeasance" was overturned, as my understanding from The Age was that this was possibly dependent on the "malice" finding? anyway, I'll check press reports from 2004. Maybe something will be clearer. (I do remember the case, but it wasn't something I closely followed). - Bilby (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two more, if it helps: The Advertiser, 2 April 2005, in relation to the second court decision "Although it upheld the earlier rulings against Dr Cornwall and committee member Judith Roberts, it dismissed the earlier finding the other committee members had acted with malice." And The Advertiser, 25 November 204, "Ms Rowan took legal action in the Supreme Court, which found Dr Cornwall had acted with misfeasance and the committee with malice. Yesterday, the Full Court of the Supreme Court upheld those findings, despite an appeal by many of the 13 defendants. However, Justices David Bleby, Anthony Besanko and John Sulan reduced the amount of damages for which Dr Cornwall was liable to $305,000." It seems he was still found guilty, irrespective of the "malice" issue. At least according to the newspaper sources. I can't find anything else post 2004 in Newsbank that adds any more to the account. - Bilby (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibition08 appears to be a single purpose account who has repeatedly removed sourced information from the article. Edward321 (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Connelly

Is http://www.starlounge.com/index.cfm?objectid=101881 a good enough source to assert that Jennifer Connelly has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no for this assertion. It's a BLP issue and I'd like something from a more mainstream source. You'd think if this is true it could be easily found. Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, stating that a living person has an illness should require a quality citation - preferably a comment from the subject themselves - there are also a few un reliable looking cites supporting some of the names here List of people diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder such as www.celebretieswithillnesses.com and www.popdirt.com Off2riorob (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Diaz

Is http://www.gnepse.com/cameron-diaz-has-attention-deficit-disorder-it-prevents-her-career/ a good enough source to assert that Cameron Diaz has Attention Deficit Disorder? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not. Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That source is so "reliable" it can't even get the title right: "Adult Deficit Disorder". That sounds like some type of economic upheaval.--Scott Mac 11:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can track it down, the original interview is this one where she does say she has ADD. However, it feels like a throwaway comment - like saying "oh, I can't do that - I just don't have the patience" - so I'm not certain this equates to a medically diagnosed claim to have ADD. I wouldn't be inclined to include her in a list based just on this one mention of the disorder. - Bilby (talk) 11:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted an attempt to add her name to the List of article [10]. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the latest attempt. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Rodriguez-Lopez

Article does not meet notability guidelines and reads more like an advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.190.177 (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A decent article will be beneficial to the subject. - he does look of limited note, music experts? - the content isn't controversial or contentious just weakly cited, perhaps he is not individually notable yet and a redirect to his brother ... I have tagged it as BLP reference improve. Feel free to add some improvements yourself, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Euan Semple

Resolved

– 17:27, 21 January 2011 User:JohnCD deleted "Euan Semple" ‎ (Wikipedia:CSD#A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

This is just a self-congratulary advert for someone who works in social media and wants to promote their company and blog. He worked on the BBC Intranet, not even the public facing social media areas, so I don't think that this qualifies him for a wikipedia article about himself. He's not important or famous enough, just another social media dude trying to get his name out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helen Edwards (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mechele Linehan

There are serval issues incorrect in the Mechele Linehan file. Nurmerous times they have been changed and continuously reverted back. Specifically in the early years, marriage and education. More importantly for the wiki folks is the litigious material referring to disdproved via trail(already litigated) information. Please correct the issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mechelelinehan (talk • contribs) 16:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Then, rather than editing the article yourself, you can suggest changes to the article based on reliable sources on the article's Talk page. And you should be specific as to what changes should be made. Even here, you don't specify precisely what is incorrect and why. In any event, it's better to do this first on the Talk page of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Rumbolz

I'd like some third, fourth, and fifth opinions on the notability of this journeyman boxer, esp. since WP:ATHLETE has no guidelines for boxers. In other words, I can't establish if the guy fought at the highest level, which is one of the rules of thumb for athletic notability. The article is currently up for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Rumbolz, and I am putting my delete vote on hold until one of you experts can have a look at the article. Note: I am not trying to canvass one way or the other--I don't care so much about this particular article. Please weigh in--and maybe someone smarter and more pugilistically inclined than me can add something to WP:ATHLETE. Thanks in advance! Drmies (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Puckrik

Please delete the date of birth because of identity theft / privacy issues. It's been deleted before but a user keeps re-posting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doowylloh (talk • contribs) 01:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you already did it. We don't have a rule that would prevent the info being re-added on those grounds specifically, but you're within your rights unless a citation with a reliable source is provided. --FormerIP (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DOB permits the subject of an article to complain about including the person's date of birth based on privacy. If you are not the subject, though, you have no basis on which to complain. Your edit summaries seem to indicate that you are removing the DOB, not because of "identity theft" but because of lack of sources ("Removed birthdate. Not verifiable content."), which is a wholly separate issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:DOB: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth where these have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object". I'd say this is the principle we should apply here - anyone wishing to include Puckrik's DoB should be required to provide WP:RS that meets this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes on Keith Olbermann please

MSNBC just announced his contract is over; there's very little official info and I'm already seeing the OR come in. Perhaps someone who actually cares about Olbermann could watch his article? :P /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Kampf

Not sure about if this is a BLP problem or another problem, but I think somebody else should look at it. One possible problem is that some of it is written by User:RayKampf (although please don't bite the newby). Another possible problem might be notability, and another lack of references. Another possible problem might be a mention of a life style preference, which some folks might consider perfectly normal and others might consider libelous. In short there are several things which just don't look right. I'll defer to the judgement of others on this. Smallbones (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, difficult. Thought I'd spotted a problem with cite, but I'd misread. Frankly, I'd be inclined to suggest deletion on the basis of non-notability, rather than getting entangled in who is who, and whether it is libellous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book exists, http://www.amazon.com/Bear-Handbook-Comprehensive-Guide-Homosexual/dp/1560239972 , and is merely cited in the article, so no WP:BLP issues (unless the author is a different Ray Kampf?) Anyway, note that the article has since been nominated for deletion since the original posting here. Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Nielsen

I represent Mr. Nielsen (and the band "Cheap Trick")'s management. We have made unsuccessful attempts to correct his date of birth on his Wikipedia page and we are asking for assistance. The correct date is Dec. 22 1948 - he is 62, not 64 as listed. If verification is needed then please contact webmaster@cheaptrick.com. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.89.167 (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are best to e-mail info-en [at] wikimedia.org . However, we require verified published sources, so e-mail verification is unlikely to suffice. Can you point us to any publications that have the correct information.--Scott Mac 13:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E V V Satyanarayana

Editors are reporting his death with no reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 07:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has been reported in Indian Express -- [11] among others. —SpacemanSpiff 08:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

notable people from Puerto Real

Pedro de Mathew the painter it is not from Puerto Real...terrible mistake. Dr. Jose Lopez Fernandez is missing from the list of Notable people from Puerto Real History. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.25.139 (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit the page yourself if you wish, even without a Wikipedia account. The article as it stands now is completely unreferenced; please include reliable sources indicating Pedro de Mathieu comes from somewhere else, and associating Dr. Fernandez with Puerto Real. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beth S. Green

Re: Beth S. Green

Several edits of mine have been removed today as deemed either a COI or non-neutral viewpoint with the subject. Hereto, I am not related to the subject and propose that her bio (as originally presented) was composed to be factual, supported with references (both internal and external to wikipedia), and appropriate for the purpose of such an online or e-Encyclopedia, such as Wikipedia's guidelines and purpose.

Since two of my edited pages have been literally reduced to just a few lines of text after much work, care and research on the subject, would someone please explain to me exactly what the issues are since "multiple issues" are now cited on the page?

Thank you.

Drmidi2010 (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Redacted to remove email] Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted edits consisted mainly of trivial and sometimes unsourced material, and were written as if they were an interview or article about the subject, not an encyclopedic biography. They also give the impression that you know the subject personally and may have interviewed her, which is not acceptable under Wikipedia's policy barring original research. Sad to say, though she seems like an interesting and good person, she is probably not notable enough to have a bio here; the hits in a Google search on "Beth Green photographer" are to her own web site and pod casts, and seem to lack the kind of reliable third party sources needed to support a bio on Wikipedia. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jiang Xueqin

It seems all but one of the sources are self published sources. I think I removed all COI issues that were little more than advertisements for his language center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imasomething (talk • contribs) 04:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the reflist tag and fixed some references which were incorrectly embedded in the article, also added a lede and put the text in chronological order, as it started with a 2008 job and then circled back around confusingly. Agree with you about the conflict of interest problem and also wonder about notability. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Cornwall South Australian politician biography

Under a heading 'Controversy' diannaa is using poorly sourced material to justify misleading claims that are potentially defamatory. She is persisting in misdescribing the outcome of a defamation case against Cornwall, using a misleading newspaper article about the case instead of the court report i.e. the text is poorly sourced. She is persisting in claiming the court found Cornwall guilty of malice, which even the newspaper report acknowledges was overturned on appeal. She uses the term 'guilty', which implies criminal conduct when the case was civil and there was no issue of guilt. She has also created an incorrect link for the term 'misfeasance' (part of the claim for damages)so that it takes readers to the wikipedia link for 'malfeasance'. Malfeasance involves unlawful acts by a person in public office and would warrant dismissal. It is clear in the court reports that there was no claim of unlawful conduct against Dr Cornwall, and the newpaper article on which Dianna relies makes no such claim either. Finally, it is not uncommon for public figures to sue or be sued in defamation. It therefore not sufficiently remarkable to rate a mention in a political biography unless the case had a particular bearing on the person's career. In the present case, according to the dates in the court reports, the case was first heard in 1998, some 7 years after Cornwall had left public office, and were still being appealed more than 15 years later. So it is diffucult to justify even mentioning in Cornwall's biography that he was found liable to pay damages in a defamation case. It appeas the only reason is to harm Dr Cornwall's reputation. The case is Rowan v Cornwall, which on appeal to the Supreme Court of SA in 2004 is ^[1] http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinosrch.cgi?method=auto&meta=%2Fau&mask_path=&mask_world=&query=rowan+vs+cornwall&results=50&submit=Search&rank=on&callback=off&legisopt=&view=relevance&max= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exhibition08 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

We just dealt with this above, posted by the same user. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Nielsen

There is debate at Rick Nielsen as to the subject's year of birth. An IP user claiming to represent the subject is claiming a date that is different than that published in most online biographies I perused. As a stopgap I removed the birthdate information altogether, but this probably is not a long-term solution. VQuakr (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An inquiry was posted above by a representative and received the reply, "You are best to e-mail info-en [at] wikimedia.org . However, we require verified published sources, so e-mail verification is unlikely to suffice. Can you point us to any publications that have the correct information." Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit curious, as there appears to be lots of reliably sourced evidence for the 1946 date, over a long period of time. I've commented on the talkpage.--Slp1 (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Mitchell MP

Citation 7 to a Guardian article is accurate but wrong. The Guardian is in fact quoting the cv of Andrew Michael Mitchell a Conservative candidate in 1997 and 2001. Please have this removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.201.153 (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's much appreciated. I've looked into it and removed that material that relied on The Guardian's article. - Bilby (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian is a reliable source. If the statement is in their bio of Mitchell, and has not been challenged, we can accept this as established fact. There was no candidate named "Andrew Michael Mitchell" in the 1997 or 2001 general election. The information that Mitchell worked for Touché Ross, Lazards and other financial institutions can be found elsewhere, such as Africa Confidential's Who's Who entry [12] and Debrett's [13]. The statement is not pejorative; indeed, it has been cited in his support by various bloggers and commenters [14] [15]This information seems well-attested and notable, and I have restored it to the article. RolandR (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more on the talk page - basically, it looks like The Guardian made an error. This doesn't mean that it isn't an RS, but that it slipped up. - Bilby (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any dispute that Mitchell spent several years at Lazard. Other than the questioned Guardian article I don't see any reliable support for the statement that he was at Touche Ross, Stonehouse, or WH Everett. (One of the links that RolandR gives is to comments on a blog, which may well have just quoted the Wikipedia entry; the other link mentioned Lazard but not some of the others.) Most significantly, Mitchell was the MP for Gedling from 1987 to 1997; is it possible that he was simultaneously serving in these various other, full-time, positions? I know that MPs are allowed to have some outside interests, but I don't think they would have concurrent full-time positions in the City. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(update) I've gotten some input on the article talkpage by a knowledgeable editor with the right reference books. Based on his comments there, I think this is resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Truscott

Is having contentious material from a primary source repeatedly inserted. And the source does not even back up all the claims :) Collect (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left him a welcome template, his page was still a redlink after over a dozen reverts... and a note asking him as the content is disputed to not replace it without discussion and consensus here. The user has been trying to add this content about fourteen times for fourteen months ... The issue appears to be that all he wants to add to support the claims is the primary report and a couple of comments that are probably just known facts. - The report http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/doj-truscott.pdf is 175 pages long and there does appear to have been some issues regarding allegations of mis appropriation of resources and such like but without secondary reports but without secondary independent wiki reliable reports none of it can be added....looking at the outcome a lot of the allegations were not proven, the report closes with .. "Because Truscott resigned as the ATF Director on August 4, 2006, we make no recommendations regarding his actions.Off2riorob (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert_Yarber

As per note 2 of the Biographies of Living Persons page, I have repeatedly removed defamatory information from this page. Advocacy type publications are linked as "sources" but do not seem to fit the standard of "reliable." Unverified claims about the subject's behavior are not in compliance with Wikipedia policy on the biographies of living persons. If this behavior continues other action may be necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetwarexpert (talk • contribs) 20:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toto Wolff

I think it more likely that Toto competed in the Austrian Formula Ford series, not the Australian.

^ CORNWALL & ORS v ROWAN [2004] SASC 384 (24 November 2004)

[1] CORNWALL & ORS v ROWAN [2004] SASC 384 (24 November 2004)

[1]

@@ Line 513: / Line 513: @@
 As per note 2 of the Biographies of Living Persons page, I have repeatedly removed defamatory information from this page. Advocacy type publications are linked as "sources" but do not seem to fit the standard of "reliable." Unverified claims about the subject's behavior are not in compliance with Wikipedia policy on the biographies of living persons. If this behavior continues other action may be necessary.  <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Wetwarexpert|Wetwarexpert]] ([[User talk:Wetwarexpert|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Wetwarexpert|contribs]]) 20:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+== Toto Wolff ==
+I think it more likely that Toto competed in the Austrian Formula Ford series, not the Australian.

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