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.

Nikki Yanofsky

Nikki Yanofsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sources seem clear enough to me in support of our stating in our article that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish, yet it is being objected to. It is being discussed at Talk:Nikki Yanofsky#Religious Views. Can we have further input from others?

It was brought here previously, by me. There is an additional source at this point in time. Here we have the previous discussion at this Noticeboard. Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why her apparently being of Jewish descent is of any significance to her notability, or indeed of any significance to the article at all? Or is this just another example of Bus Stop's obsessive ethno-tagging project. (BTW, has anyone ever seen him demonstrating this obsession with other ethnicities?) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, according to the article, it is a prominent part of her parents life, though her parents are not notable outside of the fact of being her parents. I personally don't see anything wrong with the current version. I do think it is obsessive ethno-tagging, but there is nothing wrong with mentioning her family background.Griswaldo (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Re Andy, I thinks this is indeed simply more of Bus Stop's obsessive ethno-tagging project, and no, I've never seem him demonstrating this obsession with other ethnicities. It's clear from the sources that her parents are quite active in the Jewish community, but it's not at all clear that the daughter shares this self-identification. Many religions and religious people, including Jewish newspaper sources, assume that a child is of the same religion as the parents: however, this is simply not true and kids frequently rebel. Niki may well consider herself a Buddhist or a Pagan or an athiest, we have no way of knowing unless she says. Given that she's a minor and hasn't make any declaration of religious affiliation, the most we can state in the article is that she is born into a Jewish family. Most people will read that as a Jewish identification and we've not put any possibly false statements into the article in the process.

As for Bus Stop's weak synthesis using such details as going home for Passover: many people go home for social events such as Christmas, Easter, Passover, and join in even though they don't consider themselves Christian or Jewish. It's a social thing and proves nothing. Yworo (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

But we do have sourcesThe following 5 excerpts from 2 sources would I think pretty clearly serve to establish for Wikipedia purposes that Yanofsky is Jewish:

"Jewish artist records Vancouver Olympic theme song".

"Jewish jazz sensation Nikki Yanofsky’s career continues to blossom."

"Along the way, Yanofsky was mentored by many other Jewish artists, such as the composer Marvin Hamlisch, who featured her at age 14 at a Carnegie Hall performance in New York."

"“Performing in Israel was so moving. How can anyone, Jewish or not Jewish, not feel connected to the people there? I enjoyed not only performing there, but seeing all the landmarks in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. I definitely want to come back to Israel as often as possible,” Yanofsky said."

"“She comes from a close-knit Jewish family. Her parents, Richard and Elyssa, who manage her career, support many Jewish causes, including the Israel Cancer Research Fund. The singer will be home next month to celebrate a Passover seder with her parents and two brothers ." Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again... Can you explain why her apparently being of Jewish descent is of any significance to her notability, or indeed of any significance to the article at all? If you can't, then your obsessions are best directed elsewhere. Wikipedia isn't intended to be therapy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talk • contribs)

All the sources presented above which actually say she is Jewish (only the first two) are Jewish news sources which don't explain how they know she considers herself Jewish, they make assumptions and don't provide sources for their claims. The rest are unusable because they rely on implication or interpretation, which we don't allow on any articles, much less BLPs. None of the last three directly state that she is Jewish. They say some other artists are Jewish, that Yanovsky found performing in Israel "moving", that her parents are Jewish, and that she will be at home for Passover. I attend seders, but that doesn't mean I'm Jewish. None of these are reliable sources for this specific detail, and none establish that even if she is Jewish that it is a significant part of her notability. Now, if you had some non-Jewish sources that state that she is Jewish and how this relates to her singing career or otherwise contributes to her notability, that would be different. Having the Jewish community note that she is Jewish doesn't really mean anything for the general notability of her alleged Jewishness. The fact that other, non-Jewish, sources don't even mention it means it is not significant to her notability. If it were, it would get mentioned in the non-Jewish sources. Yworo (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I also note that the "five" sources you present above are only two sources. The first two are one article, the last three another article. When you present sources, please try to do it in a way that is not misleading about the number of sources involved, hmmm... Yworo (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yworo—the content of an article is not limited to that which shows a clear relation to notability according to my reading of policy:

"Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence."

"These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list." Bus stop (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. What limits this is discussion on the talk page with regard to reaching an editorial decision regarding the significance of such matters. As always, it is for those wishing to assert significance to provide evidence of such. So where is this evidence to be found? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, Yworo—you seem to call for "non-Jewish" sources. Do you find support for that in policies, guidelines, and essays?

And you say the 2 reliable sources I've provided "don't explain how they know she considers herself Jewish". Do you have a source that would show that she might not consider herself Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

They are not reliable source for this particular piece of information because they are sources which have a bias with respect to that particular piece of information. So you have no reliable sources. Furthermore, it's not simply a matter of whether or not she is Jewish, it's a matter or whether or not her alleged Jewishness is part of her notability. Jewish sources can't establish that. Yworo (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yworo—you say, "…it's a matter or whether or not her alleged Jewishness is part of her notability."

I find at WP:NOTE that:

"Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence."

and:

"These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list."

As applied to our article, wouldn't the above policy imply that "Jewishness" need not be "part of her notability"? Bus stop (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No. It would imply that you should read the next sentence in the notability guidelines: "For Wikipedia's policies regarding content, see Neutral point of view, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Biographies of living persons". Now provide evidence of significance, or stop wasting everyone's time with your facile wikilawyering. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yworo—we require reliable sources. You have not demonstrated that The Jewish Tribune and the Canadian Jewish News are not reliable sources. Like all news organizations they have their reputation to protect.

So far you have not pointed to wording in policies, guidelines, and essays that might guide us in evaluating sources in the way that you are suggesting. Where do you find differentiation between sources on this basis? Bus stop (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say, "provide evidence of significance". Note that at this point in the article's evolution, it is not being suggested that this particular characteristic be expanded upon. All that is being suggested, by me, is that it be perfunctorily noted. Do you think there has to be great significance—like she has to be basing jazz syncopation on cantorial rhythms? Bus stop (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you have still provided no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate why Yanofsky's Jewish descent is of any significance, I'd assume that there isn't any. On that basis, there is nothing to debate here. Can somebody hat this section please? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• - I am not seeing any support for her having any religious views, is there some support for that claim? Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—you say you see no "religious views." Bear in mind that Wikipedia is "not finished". If "religious views" come to light they can be added at a later time. Bus stop (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

note - the post above from user:bus stop is posted out of the timeline and confuses the discussion making it look like a post from user Griswaldo is a reply to the user bus stops post but this is false, the post above is actually posted after the one below - Yes, indeedy, but that is not the question - so clearly we have not reliable support for her religiousness. As I had a look at the content and the reliable support is very good at present and without more reliable reports this is well resolved, a quality update, thanks to all. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop, are you unhappy with the current state of the entry, which mentions her Jewish upbringing but says nothing about her own identity? If you are happy with the current state then there is nothing more to discuss. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—you mention "religiousness" but of course that is not the issue. This was my edit to the Yanofsky article:

"Yanofsky is Jewish and was born and raised in Hampstead, a Montreal suburb and she now attends St. George's School of Montreal. Her parents presently manage her career."

I believe the above edit to the Personal life section of the article, made by me, is completely supported by sources. In fact, that is the primary issue here. Is the assertion that "Yanofsky is Jewish" supported by sources? I think that is what we should be primarily be discussing. Bus stop (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you please stop posting in discussion format, engorged and elongated comments in links? what part of [diff] don't you understand? Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to stop this is a repeat issue with you adding "Nikki/Jonny/Harry - who is a Jew" as if it is a primary notability. George who is Christian ... its your primary interest but not readers or wikipedias. Off2riorob (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No. What we should be discussing is whether the fact that Yanofsky is of Jewish descent is of any significance to the article. Since you utterly refuse to explain why you see any significance to this, I can only assume that you consider imposing your own neuroses on Wikipedia as more important than the stated aims of the project. On this basis, I would support a call for you to be topic banned from any BLPs of persons of Jewish descent, ethnicity or faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - topic ban for user bus stop from any BLPs of persons of Jewish descent, ethnicity or faith. its a repeat issue. Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Support - I've brought this up on AN/I before and failed to establish as topic ban; however, Bus Stop's behavior appears to have gotten even more obsessive since then and I still support a topic ban. Yworo (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, Off2riorob—do you want Wikipedia to be a petty battleground? Two sources devote considerable commentary to Yanofsky being Jewish. One of those sources entitles its article, "Jewish artist records Vancouver Olympic theme song". Are you sure it is not one or both of you that should have your editing activities curtailed? Jewish identity for the subject of a WP:BLP can be stated in a straightforward way—if doing so is adequately supported by sources. That is what this discussion should have been about. Unfortunately my intentions to keep this discussion civil and especially on topic are taxed considerably by the battleground mentality that utilizes calls for "topic bans" as a response that should have addressed the issue at hand. All Jews are not merely "from a Jewish family." If sources say that they themselves are indeed Jewish, it should be within the realm of possibility for Wikipedia to adhere to such sources. Bus stop (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The petty battleground is your own mentality, even worse it that your battleground and issue is genetic and religious. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop, the issue at hand is whether Yanofsky being of Jewish descent is actually of any significance to the article. You utterly refuse to address this, and instead endlessly drone on about 'reliable sources', when reliability isn't the issue, but relevance. It is this refusal to communicate, combined with an endless pushing of the same absurd POV regarding labelling anyone possible as 'Jewish', that indicates your lack of concern for Wikipedia, and your utter disregard for objectivity regarding this question. This is why I suggested a topic ban. I've no doubt you could do useful work elsewhere on the project if you ceased pursuing this obsession of yours. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Yea, bus stop...are you interested in anything apart from jews? Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Simple sourcing question. If she's sourced as being Jewish, having Jewish parents, being of Jewish descent, believing in Judaism, "growing up Jewish", etc., that's a biographical fact and can be included as such. Whether it's worth including and how you word it (and I'm offering no opinion there) is a matter of editorial discretion, but a blanket abstract claim that one shouldn't mention a person's connection to Judaism unless it's sourced as being relevant to notability is clearly not in accordance with our content policies and guidelines. "Relevant to notability" has been repeatedly proposed and rejected as a standard for content generally, and there's nothing special about Jewishness that would require a higher standard. If the sources are unclear you have a WP:V issue. There's no BLP issue unless the sources are weak or in conflict. This is basic stuff. Let's move on, please. I'll assume good faith about the original poster's asking of this question, but everyone else ought to lay off on using yet another forum as a WP:BATTLEGROUND for personal attacks or efforts to remove mention of Jewish ethnicity from the encyclopedia. If this behavior continues it's heading for behavioral RfCs or Arbcom, which is an unpleasant process unlikely to yield results that satisfy anyone.- Wikidemon (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the 'biographical facts' you state are not actually sourced, beyond her having Jewish parents. Secondly though, you are not addressing the question I have repeatedly asked Bus Stop: why is Yanofsky being of Jewish descent of any significance to the article? As for this going to 'behavioural RfCs or Arbcom' then if that occurs, so be it. Maybe this will finally settle the issue one way or another, and if the ethnio-taggers win, I'm sure they will all be happy in their endeavours to compile Tag-a-Jew-pedia, regardless of the diminishing credibility of the project. After all, it isn't here for the readers, but as therapy for the contributors... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikidemon - please read the citations previous to commenting, vague comments are worse than constructive, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec - before the above 2 comments) I've taken a quick look, and it's not entirely clear to me that there is strong sourcing to say she is Jewish in the first place. The sources are nominally reliable but the actual references seem to be passing and indirect - of the "like other Jewish artists..." variety in Jewish special interest publications, not a strong source flat out saying "She is Jewish" or "Her parents were Jewish" (in the latter case we would say just that, about her parents and not her). Weak sources do create a BLP question as noted. (after ec) Being of Jewish faith, background, religion, ethnicity, and/or parentage is a biographically relevant fact in its own right, like being born in a certain place or a certain year, attending a particular school, gender and nationality, or who one's parents are. We don't need to source the importance of any of these, we just report them when the sources do. The "tag-a-Jew" comment is rude and offensive; please desist from mocking people who don't share your opinion on the biographical implcations of being Jewish. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

And you can demonstrate that there are biographical implications for Yanofsky being of Jewish descent ('Jewish' is ambiguous in this context)? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No, no need to demonstrate the biographical implications of each biographical fact. That's not how biographies work here or anywhere else. If a person's parents were Jewish, or seamstresses, or from Poland, we just lay out the facts. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No, we make editorial decisions on which 'facts' to include in an article, based on their significance. Neither you nor Bus Stop have provided any evidence whatever in this regard. If you can't explain why something should be included, it shouldn't be. Or should we start adding shoe size to biographies? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Start adding shoe size? It's already in Template:Infobox adult biography and Template:Infobox model, among others, and, assuming my memory isn't failing, I've removed a lengthy excursion on the subject from Uma Thurman. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I don't know who this "we" is you're referring to, because it certainly does not reflect the practice of Wikipedia editors or others writing biographies. I'm not going to engage you [ATG] in yet another mock debate over your strange proposition that Jewishness isn't a fit subject for the encyclopedia. You want to compare it to shoe size and other nonsense, please take that somewhere else. We get it, you don't think Jewishness is relevant to people's life story so it shouldn't be mentioned. But this is a BLP notice board, not a vehicle for removing ethnicity from the encyclopedia. If the subject is reliably sourced, the subject is reliably sourced. If not, it isn't. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If it can be demonstrated that "Jewishness is relevant to people's life story", and in particular, that it is relevant to a biography that only exists because of a person's notability, then yes, if an argument is made that this is significant, then this should be considered for inclusion. What should not occur is what a few editors routinely engage in - looking for sources to demonstrate that person X is of their favourite ethnicity, in order to add another person to their list - this is basically stamp-collecting (or bus spotting?), applied to people. It us utterly unencyclopaedic, and serves no useful purpose other than to reinforce the ridiculous stereotypes that go with 'ethnicity'. It adds no useful content whatsoever to articles, except for those who share the same unhealthy obsession with shoving people into ethnic boxes - something that I'd have thought (perhaps naively), those with Jewish roots might be a little wary of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Please take derisive comments about other editors somewhere else, not here. If you think downplaying ethnicity will make the world a more tolerant place, you're perfectly welcome to that opinion. But insulting people who think otherwise is rude to your fellow editors, offensive to some, and off topic. Again, I'm not going to debate you. You've come to this board many times, and debated me before, over your campaigns to remove various ethnic-related content from the encyclopedia. If you have a content-related proposal that's what article talk pages are for. If you have a policy proposal to change how Wikipedia describes ethnic identity there are plenty of policy pages to discuss that. If you're going to be realistic about things you've got an uphill battle there because most people are just fine mentioning that someone is Jewish (or some other ethnicity, parentage, or religion) if the sources say so. This notice board relates to poorly sourced contentious statements about living people, not a decision on whether to include sourced material or not. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

"This notice board relates to poorly sourced contentious statements about living people, not a decision on whether to include sourced material or not". Exactly. The correct place for such disputes is the article talk page, where the significance of such issues can better be debated. Bus Stop brought the issue here because he was losing the debate. Mainly because his obsession with labelling people as 'Jewish' is seen for what it is - an obsession that has little to do with article content, and everything to do with his own wish to apply stereotypes. I note that like Bus Stop, you don't actually offer any reason as to why Yanofsky's ethnic background should be included in the bio, beyond the fact that it can be sourced. Since Wikipedia isn't intended as an ethnobureaucratic database (as far as I'm aware), one would at least hope that those wishing to engage in such practices would offer a better justification for doing so than 'because I want to, and I've got sources...'. So tell us why it is of relevance... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic background / religion / parentage / national origin / etc. reliably sourced -> ethnic background / religion / parentage / national origin / etc. can be mentioned in bio. If an uncontroverted plurality of reliable sources say that someone's parents are/were Jewish then we can say in their bio article that their parents are/were Jewish. It's as simple as that and I'm not going to jump down a rabbit hole debating the whys and wherefores of such a basic biographical principle or the larger social issues behind it. I don't particularly care what axe you have to grind about the motivations of Bus Stop or any other editor. You obviously care about this in the context of avoiding stereotypes and oppression. I've already said that the way you have expressed some of that stuff is off-putting and potentially offensive to some. It's obvious from the state of articles, and the policy / guideline pages, that most people are okay with mentioning ethnicity if sourced rather than systematically downplaying it. That's the state of consensus on Wikipedia, and how bios are written off Wikipedia. Aggressively confronting people on the subject is not going to help win them to your case to downplay ethnicity. At this point we're talking in circles, and we've talked about this exact issue a number of times before, here and elsewhere. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

- This was resolved earlier, its simple biographical detail, she is from a Jewish family, thats worthy of note in her bio, a simple comment like what we have - basically, unless she was adopted its an ethnic claim, its her roots - we have a cite for that she was brought up in a Jewish home and that is in the article - I don't see any reason in the right context not to mention that. There is no citations that dispute the claim ...so ....What we don't know is if she goes to synagogues or is spiritual or religious or any of that, so we just add what we have, it just needs care and close reporting of the citations. One of the reasons such is an issue is because of the diaspora and the persecution, Jewish ethnicity was often hidden. If cited it is worthy of note in a simple comment. This is back here repeatedly, we need to give a little and just present ethnic issues like this in a reasonable way. Its not a part of her notability , just a simple fact of her life story and who she is and where her roots come from. Off2riorob (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If no one objects to the current state of the article I'd like to close this discussion. This thread is not the right place for a more general discussion about the relevance of ethnicity in BLPs. I have my own opinion on that subject, but it's not worth sharing here. Can we please stop this discussion unless there is a current BLP issue that isn't resolved. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—are you an expert on Judaism? You say, "What we don't know is if she goes to synagogues or is spiritual or religious or any of that…" Sources say that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish. Why are you questioning sources? Sources need not provide the details that you request—unless you are presenting yourself as an expert in the subject of Judaism. If at some future point information becomes available to us, that is reliably sourced, concerning synagogue attendance or any of the other points that you mention, then at that point such material can be added to our article. Wikipedia is not really ever finished. Related information that is unavailable shouldn't obviate inclusion of that information that is presently available and reliably sourced. In my opinion the salient question is: do we have sufficient sourcing to say that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish? I think we do. (AndyTheGrump raises what I think is a secondary question: should we include that even if it is well-sourced?) My argument is that we do not have to beat around the bush as far as Nikki Yanofsky's Jewishness is concerned. We need not consign her Jewishness to the present wording, "…was born and raised in a 'close-knit Jewish family'". There is more to it than that. In my reading of sources, they are saying also that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish. While it is true that she was raised in a Jewish family, the more pertinent point is that she is Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The way that the wiki works is that luckily all contributors edit articles - you are not required to be an expert of Jewish issues, luckily, such restrictive contributions would result in Jewish articles written by Jewish people for Jewish people, what we are looking for is a world view , a global understanding and presentation of this topic and not a narrow introspective involved position. As for your comments, you seem like a single voice with your position and as such your points have been rebutted previously and are unworthy of repeated response. Off2riorob (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob—you say we are looking for a "world view , a global understanding". I don't think that is correct. In my opinion we are looking for adherence to sources. Opinions can vary on just what constitutes a "world view , a global understanding". But the importance of adherence to sources to this project can't be overestimated. Bus stop (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes and that has been followed in this case extremely closely. Off2riorob (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

So once again Bus Stop responds with his usual 'Wikipedia must list every Jew I can find a source for' blather. Wrong. Sources are a necessary requirement for inclusion. They are not however a sufficient one. This in an encyclopaedia, not your own personal ethnic database. If you can't come up with a better argument than 'It is sourced, and I want it', then find a Wiki that supports your obsession.

And BTW, Bus Stop, your "reading of sources" clearly falls under WP:OR too. Not to mention that your endless searching for such sources falls under WP:NPOV issues, since it is clearly intended to push an agenda, and distorts the project by marking a particular ethnicity as more worthy of mention. If you were attempting to insert ethnicity into all BLPs, I could take this as merely an obsession, but your confining it to Jewish people demonstrates just how skewed your outlook is over issues of ethnicity, and is further grounds for suggesting you should not be editing BLPs.

With regard to the article in question, I think the statement that "Yanofsky was born and raised in a 'close-knit Jewish family'" is unnecessary, but if the consensus on the talk page is that this should be included, I'll not object. A statement that she is Jewish would at minimum have to clarify whether this was by ethnicity, or faith - and if the latter be self-attributed, and shown to be of relevance to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say, "…your endless searching for such sources falls under WP:NPOV issues, since it is clearly intended to push an agenda, and distorts the project…"

Let me respond to that:

I didn't first add to the article that Yanofsky was Jewish. Nor did I bring the first of the two sources supporting that Yanofsky is Jewish. Nor did I initiate the section on the Talk page of the Yanofsky article called Talk:Nikki Yanofsky#Religious Views—where the entirety of this discussion takes place at that article. In point of fact the statement that Yanofsky is Jewish has been inserted as well as removed numerous times, by others, before I ever became aware of this issue. When I became aware of the issue I posted my comments and opinions on the already in progress "Religious views" section of the Yanofsky article Talk page. And I also tried to insert the statement that Yanofsky is Jewish into the article. I was reverted. I did nothing for some months, then discovered that there was a new reliable source available that was also supportive of Yanofsky being Jewish. So I brought that to the Talk page and once again tried to insert that assertion into the article. That was about a week ago.

This is an issue that existed for many months at the Yanofsky article long before I even became aware of it. Don't forget that the first of two sources is from February of 2010; I first joined the discussion on the Yanofsky Talk page in December of 2010. I was not even aware of it before that point. If you look through the article history you will see numerous additions of the assertion that Yanofsky is Jewish as well as numerous removals of that same assertion.

I can bring diffs but I thought I'd just present the above as it is easier. Bus stop (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, if we set aside the broader implications and concentrate on the matter at hand (often a good idea) I think I agree with Off2riorob and AndyTheGrump. If we have solid sources as to simple biographical facts, e.g. Nikki Yanofsky was born to Jewish parents, it's fair to include that in the bio absent any particular reason not to. However, we cannot extrapolate our own declaration of identity from that (i.e. say that Nikki Yanofsky is Jewish herself) without sources. You could call that a BLP thing, or SYNTH, or opinion, whatever. The sources on whether she is Jewish herself are few, relatively weak, and subject to reasonable question (e.g. that passing comments in Jewish-related publications that someone is Jewish are often inaccurate and overinclusive). We don't have anything definitive pro or con - no contradicting sources, no self-identification, and no sources to say that any of this matters to her bio, so the default position would be to leave that out. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikidemon—you say that, "...passing comments in Jewish-related publications that someone is Jewish are often inaccurate and overinclusive..."

Do you find support for anything along these lines in Wikipedia policies, guidelines, essays, or anywhere else on Wikipedia? Or is this an idea that has never received any degree of community approval? Bus stop (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not rule-based, it's consensus-based. In this case, the consensus is clearly against you. The applicable policies in this particular case are WP:CON combined with WP:BLP. Yworo (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yworo—it might be worth noting that nothing supports the notion that a so-called "Jewish source" is any less reliable than a so-called "non-Jewish source". If your argument hinges on such an assumption, might not your argument be invalid? Bus stop (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

To quote WP:NEWSORG, "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis." That's what's being done here. Yworo (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yworo—when you have two different publications supporting an assertion, that too counts for something. And they are publishing the same information approximately a year apart. These are factors that I think contribute to credibility. Bus stop (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of your opinion. I disagree with you. So do multiple other editors. Things are done by consensus here and the consensus is clearly and solidly against you. You have been repeatedly tendentious on this subject, and if you plan to continue further Wikilawyering on this subject, I personally hope someone starts another topic ban proceeding against you. Yworo (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Simple question; does this person self-identify as Jewish? Tarc (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No, we have nothing presented for that, but she has not been/is not inserted in any cats in regard to that. Off2riorob (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

IMO that is a pretty lear case against Bus Stop's position, then. Tarc (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Tarc—is it your understanding that a precondition to our stating in the body of an article that a person is Jewish is a statement from that individual that they are Jewish? Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment What is the BLP concern being addressed presently? I tried to hat this discussion but Bus Stop unhatted it. If there is no longer a BLP concern being discussed take this somewhere else. I wont rehat this becuase I don't want to edit war, but seriously this is not a wikiproject about ethnicity or general BLP matter, but a noticeboard to deal with specific issues. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

What is usually the case here is we don't usually bother hatting discussions, in cases like this where there is a single user refusing to accept consensus we usually just ignore them and the thread will close on its own. This appears to be a repeat issue with user bus stop and that may well require addressing if the pattern continues.Off2riorob (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough.Griswaldo (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment - i really don't understand. andy - you seem very headstrong that religion is not important in an encyclopedic article. we should go through every blp and erase christian, jewish, muslim, etc. because it is NEVER relevant to their importance because their voice is only what matters if they are a singer, and their acting talent if they are an actor, and their looks if they are a model, etc. but alas, the world we live in is not uni-dimensional, so an encyclopedia tells us the whole picture. she is of jewish parents, seems to be the consensus for now, so leave it. and if you really want to stick to the self-declared rule, i will happily start to edit lots of pages here, and people will not be happy about that! Soosim (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Your threats to edit other articles are laughable - go on then - do your worst - Perhaps you don't get it as regards to en wikipedia - someone is a notable singer, their religion is irrelevant to that and is not a part of their notability , it might be what your interested in but that is irrelevant to this wikipedia, jonny is a notable singer, not a notable Jew that is a singer. Off2riorob (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

off - 'threats'? sorry. not me. but i am happy i made you laugh. that is important to me. and i see you don't get it. jonny the jew is a notable singer. on his bio page in en wiki, his date of birth did not make him notable. (he is not a notable april 1, 1994 birth that is a singer - as you would say). his city of birth or residence, etc - those are pieces of what we call 'information'. nothing more or less. enjoy them. learn from them. that's what they are there for. thanks! Soosim (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes your threats, laughable threats - not because they are funny at all. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Soosim, Wikipedia policy is quite clear regarding making statements about the religious faith of living persons: this needs to be self-asserted. I'd assumed that this debate was about whether Yanofsky should be described as ethnically Jewish, where policy is less clear regarding sourcing. The point is that whether a persons faith and/or ethnicity are of significance to an article is normally decided by talk-page consensus etc. There is no hard-and-fast rule either way, though a few individuals seem to take the line that such matters are automatically significant in regard to particular faiths and/or ethnicities - usually their own. This is of course a gross breach of WP:NPOV. I suspect that one reason this debate is so contentious is because of cultural differences between US and other contributors. Certainly, in Britain, the need to identify everyone by ethnicity seems less pronounced that it would appear to be in the US. I also suspect that there are inter-generational differences regarding this issue, and of course educational level is of significance too. All of this tends to make for endless debate, and constant edit-warring over contentious cases. Frankly, I don't think that we will ever solve this issue entirely, but a littkle more honesty about motivations might help. Personally, I have no problem admitting to a bias against adding content regarding faith and ethnicity to BLPs where it is of little significance - but this is a bias acknowledged in Wikipedia WP:BLP policy which states that "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy". There is very little 'regard for privacy' involved in drive-by ethnotagging, based on questionable sources. There is also the issue that Wikipedia seems rather prone to getting such matters just plain wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

andy - i edit many blps for christians and for jews. as i said above - not a 'threat' (oh my) but just a fact - i can re-edit them and remove all but self admitting ones. so many christians are listed as such, as are jews, but no attibution of self admitting. whatever. they might even be clergy, but have never said that they themselves where x. Soosim (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

so what - go and delete whatever you want - do it now, yawn, your squealing is nothing but empty worthless threats. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have to admit, I found this thread of interest, but became lost somewhere in the middle. Or perhaps, given its length, it was the beginning. But, I'm guessing that maybe it is resolved? (hoping ....). I'll just point out one thought I'm left with. If Editor x likes the Yankees, and seeks to properly improve all Yankees articles (but not the Red Sox articles), that's great. Same if he likes to edit about cities in Siberia (but not about those in Namibia). Or dogs (but not cats). That's all great. Some editors here may have a POV against the Yankees, or Siberia, or dogs, but that is not reason for them to be critical of Editor x. Our project is built by editors editing on subjects that are of interest to them.

The opposite is not ok. If Editor y hates the Yankees (perhaps he prefers the Red Sox), or hates Siberia (perhaps he dislikes the cold), or hates dogs (those cat-lovers!), and Editor y seeks to eviscerate those articles improperly, that is indeed a problem. Just a thought. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

So how do you feel about Editor X running from BLP article to BLP article adding the assertion "A Yankees Fan" based on the fact that the subjects parents might once attended a game? Would that be improving the BLP articles. John lilburne (talk) 08:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi John. First of al, do you agree w/my initial premise? As to your second question, as you describe it I would think there may well be a stretch. If it is nothing more than that. But hey -- I am dealing right now w/an editor who says that "Wherever there is a Yankee fan, I have to insert it if his Mother is a Red Sox fan". And ... he then deletes the fact that the subject is a Yankees fan. How's that for odd?--Epeefleche (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the initial premise is, other than people should be improving the articles, which seems like a tautology, but perhaps I've missed something. Question is whether the addition of all factoids, if facts they are, improves the articles. My view is that they should only be added if, and only if, they provide insight into the person and why they are being listed in the first place. Otherwise one ends up with an article that is full of irrelevant nonsense. I don't want to know the names of Isaac Newton's cat, if he indeed had one, the name of Erwin Schrödinger's cat on the other hand might be interesting. In neither case does knowing what religion their parents were advance any understanding of either person, and quite frankly labelling Schrödinger as an Irish Physicist (even though he was naturalized) is bizarre, and labelling him Roman Catholic on the basis that his father was is equally odd, one might as well label him English too as his mother was of English ancestry. None of this improves the articles one iota. John lilburne (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Bob Parsons

Resolved

 – after considerable discussion, compromise content added to both the BLP and the company article

Bob Parsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Parsons, who is CEO of GoDaddy.com, was recently in the national news for videotaping himself killing elephants and a leopard in Zimbabwe. PETA and the Humane Society called for a boycott of GoDaddy. Some editors of Parson's page have repeatedly reverted any attempt to mention this event, while refusing to offer their own compromise wording. Editor/administrator input is requested to decided whether the event should be mentioned, whether it should be part of another section or its own section, and how the wording will be determined. Thanks!Brmull (talk) 09:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I made a comment on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a fit topic for the noticeboard, so I will comment here rather than the talkpage. This material can be reliably sourced to Huffington Post and merits a neutral sentence in the article along the lines of "Parsons recently posted a video of himself shooting an elephant in Zimbabwe and distributing meat to villagers. As a result, PETA has called for a boycott of his company, Godaddy." For weight purposes, I would not give it its own section. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the post above. The sources merit a one sentence, neutrally worded mention of the event, along the lines of the text suggested by Jonathan.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I like the write up. Its written in a way I wanted to see things go. However I think it might be more appropriate in the Go Daddy article. What PETA did was towards Go Daddy. If that isn't the consensus though I'm fine with it in the Parsons article. Basileias (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there a citations that supports Parsons was "distributing meat to villagers"? Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well the above suggestion seems a bit undue there is already a section in the Go Daddy#Animal rights article and I have edited that today for npov. I will bring my comment back from the talkpage as you desire to discuss it here is my offer at a neutrally worded addition.. I would also prefer not to have a section header but as the BLP is currently laid out it may need one, if it does then Animal rights is imo a reflective enough neutral header. Basically I have jusrt reported the basic detail - we are not here to be a soapbox for PETA opinions. This issue is actually only really noteworthy at the company article as something actually occurred to make it notable at least in a minor way - PETA said they were going to close their account because of it and so we can say there was a direct effect on the company, if PETA actually did have any accounts with Go Daddy - we have only their claim for that. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This has to do more with Bob Parsons himself than Go Daddy, although they sometimes seem to be inseparable. Presumably Go Daddy didn't pay for the safaris. So I definitely think there needs to be mention of this in the Parsons article. Also, it was not just PETA that closed their accouts, so did the Humane society, and CNBC reported that tens of thousands have switched.Brmull (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That claim about "tens of thousands" is going to need some serious backing. There's no proof PETA even had an account with them. Basileias (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you got the citation for - "so did the Humane society, and CNBC reported that tens of thousands have switched" - Off2riorob (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is one for "PETA, Humane Society dump Go Daddy accounts after CEO kills elephant" and here is one for "Video of elephant shooting turns into donations". CNBC was quoting industry publication TheNextWeb so I left that off.Brmull (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Animal rights

In 2011 Parsons was criticized by PETA and environmentalists after he uploaded a video of himself shooting and killing an elephant in Zimbabwe to his personal blog, the shooting was at the request of tribal authorities to protect their crops for harvest.[1][2]

The first clause through "blog" is fine. The second, starting "the shooting...." I would like to see the source but suspect it should be a separate sentence saying, "According to Parsons, the shooting..." This is more neutral, as its not up to us to say in Wikipedia's voice either that he had a visceral desire to shoot an elephant, or that he was being noble and protective of others. The business about giving the meat to villagers is in the Huffington Post article and apparently sourced to his video--described as including scenes of the villagers carving the meat off the carcass. However, I don't care if its mentioned--it was just there to suggest for neutrality, as you do, that some good arguably came of it. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, here is the source for that, I imagine there are more but agree that claim if mentioned needs attributing to Parsons - The villagers ate the elephant - they were very hungry but Parsons did not as I have seen cited ""distributing meat to villagers" - I have looked at the huffington post report and am I missing something but that claim is not there???....please point me to the support for this claim.. Off2riorob (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep the first clause, except maybe change "environmentalists" to "animal rights groups." Scratch the second clause because that's just Parsons unverified claim. Scratch "distributing meat to villagers." There's nothing in the video that shows that. The video shows the villagers scrambling for meat while Parsons films from above.Brmull (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Animal rights (2)

• I tweaked the possible addition and moved it to the bottom for continued discussion - Off2riorob (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI Reference #1 (business insider) is not NPOV and should be replaced. Reference #2 is okay.Brmull (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This looks fine (except the comma after "blog" should be a period). I saw the claim about distributing meat in a different HuffPost article (sorry to spin your wheels citing the wrong one): "Then the video gets really graphic, as Parsons records villagers who come out in the early morning to slaughter the dead animal, stripping it of its flesh." Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence is fair and balanced, although "animal rights groups" is more accurate than "environmentalists." The second sentence just gives Parsons' view. It needs to be counterbalanced with something from the opposing view such as this from The New York Times:

Said a spokeswoman for PETA, “Parsons is trying to play this off as if he’s helping people, but he’s not doing anything to solve the problem — he’s just committing a heartless act.”Brmull (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I was really trying to keep petas opinion out of the entry, as in the situation they are a very opinionated source. We should also remember - the subject did nothing illegal at all and the practice is although abhorrent to PETA it is not so to the starving locals, it seems that there is a elephant problem in Zimbabwe and the population numbers are out of control and culling and forced contraception are under discussion - culling was common practice in the past. http://elephantpopulationcontrol.library.uu.nl/paginas/txt07.html. I would like to see this kept to as minimum without all the attacking comments from opinionated activist sources. The references are all basically reporting the same thing and I added two , not the best quality, feel free to change or suggest others. Off2riorob (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Foggins is not a neutral source. He works for the Mugabe government. If you are not comfortable with PETA I consider the Humane Society and WWF reliable sources and can find quotes from either of them.Brmull (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• In 2011 Parsons was criticized by animal rights groups including PETA after he uploaded a video of himself shooting and killing an elephant in Zimbabwe to his personal blog, Parsons said the shooting was at the request of tribal authorities to protect their crops for harvest. A spokesperson for PETA described the killing as "a heartless act".

This is okay with me. Although there should be a period after "blog."Brmull (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If the concensus is that this is to go into the GoDaddy article (as it appears it should) then it is probably best to add in that PETA said they are dropping GoDaddy. "A spokesperson for PETA described the killing as "a heartless act" and dropped GoDaddy as their web host." ...Or something along those lines. Other than that it looks good for the GoDaddy article. Arzel (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, currently with have this in the GoDaddy article Go Daddy#Animal rights - actually I am having issues with this being included there at all, the issue actually has nothing to do with Go Daddy business at all apart from an activist group has said they are going to remove their business and we have no independent assertion that they even have any accounts there, has anyone got any reliable independant support for that claim? Is there a reliable citation that supports that PETA used GoDaddy services? We should not be a mouthpiece for extreme activist groups campaigns. GoDaddy the buisness has no position at all in regards to animal rights and GoDaddy the buisness has done nothing at all in regards to animal rights. Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I was just thinking of that. What proof is there PETA and all these other groups had an account with them? The sources we have don't seem well written. Basileias (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The Showbizspy.com website seems a bit unprofessional. Would this work as an alternative?

• In 2011 Parsons uploaded a video of himself shooting and killing an elephant in Zimbabwe to his personal blog. A spokesperson for PETA described the killing as "a heartless act." Basileias (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This wording is okay with me.Brmull (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I vote this should be included in both the Parsons and the Go Daddy articles. There is no way to independently verify how many domains PETA, HSUS, or anyone else had with Go Daddy without doing original research. So drop that part. But the fact that those organizations did encourage people to boycott Go Daddy has been widely reported. Go Daddy the business has made a $100,000 donation to the AZ humane society so they do have a position on animal rights. Parsons himself often talks about GoDaddy in the first person, so who knows what his legal arrangement is. I don't see Go Daddy rushing to distance themselves from Parsons' personal life.Brmull (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with adding it without the explanation from Parsons, as presented in this comment it simply says, nasty man kills elephant, he is heartless...the showbizspy is good enough for me , if you dispute its reliability we can ask at the RS noticeboard or find another with the same comment. Perhaps we should not add it to his life story as if he wasn't Go Daddy ceo this wouldn't even be notable, he would just be one of perhaps hundreds of people with a license to kill troublesome elephants in Zimbabwe. Its not like its illegal, you get a license. Off2riorob (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm agreeable with including an explanation from Parsons. I don't think the whole write up should be added to both articles. PETA is a group that isn't that significant in this situation other than being, their claim, a customer of Go Daddy. I still favor having it in the Go Daddy article only. Basileias (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(1) I'm agreeable to adding a once sentence explanation from Parsons, but then I think there should also be an explanation from the animal rights groups, such as the sentence I proposed above from PETA. (2) If we're going to use showbizspy we might as well use TMZ. This isn't gossip. There are many better sources that say the same thing. (3) If Parson's weren't Go Daddy CEO he probably wouldn't have a BLP at all. This definitely belongs there. Since Go Daddy is handling the PR for this matter it belongs in the Go Daddy article too. (4) Something doesn't have to be illegal to be controversial. Take Octomom. (5) If not PETA who would you suggest would be an authoritative counter to Parsons explanation of the provenance of video.75.19.164.163 (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

[1] from the New York Times would appear to be a preferable RS to HuffPo. Collect (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a comment: This controversy is clearly notable and it must be added to the article. It's omission is a violation of NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  01:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No. This is another case of spreading some 3rd parties nonsense across BLP articles just because the 3rd parties nonsense happens to have been printed somewhere. There are numerous sources documenting the comments that Charlie Sheen made about Chuck Lorre, but we don't spread the controversy into the Chuck Lorre article, because quite rightly editorial discretion is applied.

In this case the issue is that PETA does not approve of the culling of elephants, and particularly when rich people are paying for the privilege to do so. That is a PETA issue, not an issue in respect of the person paying to take part in a cull. Including it in the BLP article is in itself a NPOV violation. Any activist will tell you that the most effective tactic is to isolate and personalize an issue. By adding PETA commentary into the BLP article you are simply proxying for the activist organisation. 194.193.183.253 (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

When you say "article," are you meaning Parsons, Go Daddy or both? Basileias (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe he means the Parsons article since the Go Daddy page already has this info.Brmull (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• In 2011 Parsons was criticized by animal rights groups for tweeting a video in which he shoots and kills an elephant in Zimbabwe. In response Parsons stated, "The tribal authorities requested that I and others like me patrol the fields before and during the harvest." PETA said they would be closing their account with Go Daddy and urged others to do the same.Brmull (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

As it has been 40 hours since the last comment, I'm importing the latest version to Bob_Parsons. If there is no objection, 48 hours after that I will remove the NPOV flag and close this thread.Brmull (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This thread will be resolved if no objection in the next 24 hours.Brmull (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As the content is now in both articles I have marked as resolved, many thanks to all for the input and discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Line of succession to the throne of Baden

Line of succession to the throne of Baden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Unsourced article about living heirs to an abolished throne. Potentially harmful to listed persons, because the suggestion is that they are willing to take power away from current government.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

In Germany there is no kingdom more.

Why these people can be listed?

The Ottoman prince be deleted?

Dilek2 (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• amazingly enough, extinct throne lines are notable. Sometimes (vide Spain) they even reappear. Collect (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The topic is interesting, but that doesn't remove the need for reliable sources. Moreover, regarding your example, if General Franco had seen an encyclopedia article describing the young Juan Carlos as an aspirant to Franco's power, would Juan Carlos have been safe? Would Juan Carlos have wanted the attention? I doubt it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately the encyclopedia is full of this kind of nobility cruft. Such information always relates to living people, is almost always unsourced or not properly sourced, is usually either out of date or has been updated with no or improper sources, and is often contentious. In my opinion such articles should be deleted unless they have very good sources. This one does not. Hans Adler 18:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Unlike Spain, Baden no longer exists as a sovereign state. I suggest nominating it for deletion.   Will Beback  talk  21:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You can try it, but Wikipedia has a large contingent of nobility fans who swarm in in such cases. I believe such articles are usually kept but not improved in any way. I have started User:Hans Adler/Lines of succession to get an overview of the problem before attacking it systematically. Hans Adler 22:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Another route is to stub it and require any new material added be properly sourced. Most of the sources for these pages are self-published or otherwise unable to meet BLP standards. This is the only source for this article: [2]. Here's the "home page": [3]. Obviously self-published and unusable. The creator of this article worked on many succession articles: Xxy (talk · contribs). Maybe the problem is limited to a few users who don't understand WP standards.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Curiously enough, most rulers do not really view such lines as being a threat to their power. QE II does not seem to regard the potential Scots claimants as potential threats. See Pretender and Category:Pretenders with 49 entries. Collect (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

A number of countries which were formerly monarchies have exiled the deposed rulers and their heirs. They apparently were quite concerned about efforts to restore the thrones. Such things have happened in the past. "Able was I ere I saw Elba". But that's not the main reason to require properly sourced articles on pretenders.   Will Beback  talk  21:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia the home of obsessive, nutty, bizarre, and meaningless lists. John lilburne (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Rosemary Clooney

Rosemary Clooney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In her article it states she was next to Bobby when he got shot but thatis not true. She was in their hotel room taking care of Bobbys kids when he got shot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.234.142 (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The claim that she was next to RFK gives a source - if you want to change it you'd need to show evidence. Also, the place to discuss that issue is on Talk:Rosemary Clooney - this noticeboard is for issues relating to biographies of living people. Cheers - --GenericBob (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Found better source only stating that "I heard the shots" which seems about as good as we will get. Prior source was not verifiabkle online. Collect (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Pete Hamill

Pete Hamill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Concern regarding major recent revisions, the sum total of which has been an expansion and improvement of the article. However, they've also removed all inline references, as well as quotes by the subject and unpleasant material related to the family. More eyes on this would be appreciated. 99.168.85.28 (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed Chekhov61's troubling comment in the article, that all the information was written and approved by Mr. Hamill [4]. Whether the account belongs to Mr. Hamill (in which case, I am an admirer), or a family member or friend, WP:COI is a real concern. A subject may use the article talk page to discuss inaccuracies, or delete libelous material, but writing and 'approving' one's own biography falls afoul of neutrality guidelines. 99.168.85.28 (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have removed some large uncited recently addition and User:Bbb23 has also edited the content - a note was left to the user that expanded the article to comment here. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect there was conflict of interest, though I didn't doubt the veracity of the edits. Lack of sources and Chekhov's unwillingness to engage made this rather inevitable for now. 99.168.85.28 (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, we are here primarily to develop and improve articles any strong support for that will be supported. Off2riorob (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The author's daughter is asking for help; I agree that the article can be greatly expanded, and hope that a lot of the content provided by her father can be restored, if properly cited. Despite COI issues, Wikipedia doesn't often get contributions from writers of this caliber..... any help with sourcing and working with Ms. Hamill will be greatly appreciated. 99.168.85.28 (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody please tell me what I'm allowed to do/change if I have proper citations? I don't know how to change citation links. If possible can you change it for me? The 1st one needs to link to the new york post and Denis Hamill's New York Daily News link has moved. I would appreciate it.

All factual and errors i will change. for example: list of dates for books, in the bio he was also editor in chief of the New York Daily News. I think that needs to be known if the new york post one is in. I apologize for my lack of knowledge with Wikipedia. I will be sure to use citations on all changes. Please e-mail me if you have questions, Thank You. The dates of some of his books need to be added and I will do that today and there are also some missing.

I just changed the years of books published, I have all of them on my bookshelf, so I added all books with dates and a couple of books that were missing as well as adding that he published 10 novels instead of 8. As you can see he wrote 2 short stories, four books on journalism, two memoirs and two biographies. I didn't put that down but I think it should be noted. Also can be checked on Amazon.

I have to say I'm glad to see that there are people monitoring these pages but I hope factual errors can be fixed. I think it's important to have the facts correct since there are many people out there who believe in everything they read on Wikipedia regardless of authenticity and citations. I'm going to collect a series of citations and the proper links. Before you remove any changes that I just made,can you please e-mail me or better yet call me and we can talk more and I can offer more details. I think it's important. Also he is married to Fukiko Aoki also a writer— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chekhov61 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chekhov61 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Steve Mariotti

Steve Mariotti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This BLP article was created in 2008, is fairly short, and written like a Who's Who advertisement (or a resume):

• Considered one of today’s leading experts in education for at-risk youth, Steve Mariotti changed career paths in 1982...
• While teaching in this hard-hitting environment for six and one half years, Mr. Mariotti gained insight...
• As a bachelor in the 1980's Mariotti dated Edie Falco...

And more. There are no sources listed for anything. I stuck an "Unreferenced" tag at the top and removed a spammy list of publications and an EL to his company web site.

I need advice, please. I've not messed around much with BLPs but I understand the risk involved. I don't believe anything on the page is defamatory; on the contrary, it seems like a fluffy-puffy promo spiel. The problem is, I don't know what to do next. Slap a CitationNeeded tag at the end of every sentence? Propose deletion? Do nothing? Any advice someone more experienced in such matters could give me would be appreciated.

Thank you! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 02:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree it isn't the best. An editor seems to have copy-pasted the same material several times (here, for example) and later been reverted because it's too promotional. It looks like it was copied from the website of the foundation set up by the subject (NFTE), so needs to be removed unless permission is supplied by the copyright owner. I reverted it and will leave a message for the editor who added it. --Kateshortforbob _talk 11:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Great! Thank you! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 17:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

D.B. Cooper Duane Weber I

D.B. Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Duane Weber was my husband of 17 yrs...I have chose to alter the post about my husband as the information was NOT Correct. I made the corrections, but bear in mind I am not a writer - so I may have made some grammatical errors or spelling errors. The information was NOT correct - my husband was in the navy and the army - I hope you let the information I posted stand as it is the truth where as many writers over the yrs have made incorrect statements regarding Weber and myself his widdow - you can verify that I am who I say I am that . The FBI will also verify the information you guys had up by someone else was NOT factual. Thank You and please let the corrected information I place stand - it may need spelling and grammar errors fixed - but it is the truth. Thank you, Jo Weber - widow of Duane L. Weber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spillway (talk • contribs) 06:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your edits to the article because based on personal knowledge we have no way of verifying, and posted some information on your talk page explaining Wikipedia policies and suggesting a better way to proceed with corrections. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate image?

Athanasios Orphanides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I don't know how to judge whether a photo of a living person is appropriate. I've posted a comment here: [[5]]. The case in question is Athanasios Orphanides, Governor of the Central Bank of Cyprus. Rinconsoleao (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You acted correctly in removing all images from the article for the time being. The one added by the other user is inappropriate (amusing though) and it sounds as if the original one may have been a copyright violation. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm still having a hard time understanding what Wikipedia means by 'appropriate'. If Orphanides were a rock musician instead of a central bank governor, I never would have thought the second image was inappropriate. Actually, in that case I might have considered the first image inappropriate. But all this involves guessing what another person's preferences and values are, which is pretty slippery ground.Rinconsoleao (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. But let's go on the side of caution here. We aren't losing much by not having a picture. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I've just found the copyright policy applicable to material appearing on the webpage of the Central Bank of Cyprus. It suggests that the original image can be legally used on Wikipedia (see discussion on talk page.) It may just be that copyright was wrongly described when a user first uploaded the image. Rinconsoleao (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, very good. So let's just stick that back in. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparent self-promotion: Faisal Tehrani

Faisal Tehrani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sorry, no idea if this is the right place to put this, can't find the right template to tag with. I drew Faisal Tehrani in the "reference a random biography" lottery. The page is not just unreferenced but highly promotional in tone; a principal contributor appears to be User:Tehranifaisal. I've not gone through the whole history to assess the extent of that user's contributions. What is the correct course of action here?
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Although the COI account hasn't edited the article for years now, most of the promotional material was indeed added by that COI account. I would say the correct course of action is to remove promotional material ruthlessly, and support what's left with such references as you can find. If it's extremely difficult to find suitable references then it might be suitable for AfD, but my first impression is that won't be necessary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be the correct form of action but it is such a fine example of how to be highly promotional in tone it almost seems a shame to fix it. The paragraph starting "As a novel, Tuhan Manusia is..." is marvelous. Even better, it's all quoted here on his site and at the top he says he doesn't know who compiled the Wikipedia article, so clearly User:Tehranifaisal is just coincidentally similar to the subject's name. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sylvester Stallone‎

Sylvester Stallone‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP editor (User:86.6.93.113) continues to blank sourced content from the Sylvester Stallone article (specifically his full name). After warning them on their talk page that sourced content deletion without explanation appears as vandalism, they continued to blank the information, but included an edit summary that makes assertions about Stallone's personal life without including any sources to back up the removal. I again explained that we need to use reliable sources to confirm content, and pointed the IP to the article talk page to outline their argument and sources; instead they simply blanked the content again. Before restoring the info I double checked and found multiple reliable sources in Google Books and Google News supporting the removed content. Could someone here try to impress on the IP the need to state their sources? I seem to have hit a wall with them. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted his unsourced edit and warned him (again) on his Talk page. He seems rather tenacious, though; I don't think this will stop him. I suspect Administrator intervention will be required. Sorry! I tried to help. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he is certainly tenacious and has now has clammed back up again. I'm sure he will just bounce to the next IP address and blank the info again, in which case the article may need to be temporarily semi-protected in order to force them to the talk page. They may have a valid argument, but one can never know as they refuse to discuss it in any detail. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

At it again, only explanation is that they " are in the know". [6] Maybe a 3rr block would help things? The Interior (Talk) 19:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There may be a clue in Good housekeeping: Volume 189. All I can see in google is "In the Italian tradition, he'd named our new son Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone after some members of his family. ... he announced, "my name is Mike. Just plain Mike." So Mike he was. throughout the rest of his school years and long into ..." Sean.hoyland - talk 19:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

An administrator, Courcelles, full-protected the page a little while ago. Unfortunately, the incorrect information was being displayed at the time. I've left him/her a note asking that the page either be restored to match its source or semi-protected so one the interested editors can fix it. I don't know if Courcelles will like/agree to this or not (it's not my decision, I just thought an update here would be a good idea). — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 22:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

keith wainwright mbe

{{helpme}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmotown (talk • contribs) 19:24, 11 April 2011

• Keith Wainwright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  This is a new article created by Pmotown that needs some TLC. Johnuniq (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Wayne Warrington

Wayne Warrington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pretty sure this page was simply setup by Wayne himself to increase his importance. He seems to be tricking craigslist users into signing up for his "epicurian club" by telling them he has a job for them, then blasting them with a cookie cutter email to get them to sign up, at the end of the process it asks for a credit card. Looks like a huge scam. He doesn't seem to warrant his own wiki entry and it probably violates the biographies of living persons policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.221.184 (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I proposed the article for deletion after failing to find independent third party sources confirming notability. Article was created by a SPA who hasn't been active in a few months. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Category:Gay actors

I'm not sure how to go about fixing this because who actually does qualify as a "gay actor" is totally ambiguous... but right now this category is completely ignoring WP:BLPCAT - including just about everyone and anyone who is both gay and an actor, indiscriminately. So instead of taking it to CfD (which, really, I would have preferred to do), I'm seeing if there's some criteria that can be discerned here. A WP:BEFORE? Bulldog123 20:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how the category is that different from many other categories at Wikipedia, which, unfortunately (in my view), don't have any description of the category's criteria. I guess it's supposed to be self-evident, but, of course, it often isn't. At least the gay actor category has a warning about BLPCAT in it. I believe you're going to have to take the category on a case-by-case basis to determine if a particular article subject is properly categorized. I doubt you'll get anywhere nominating it for deletion. Wikipedians appear to have a love/hate affair with categories, and god knows we wouldn't want to eliminate a controversial one and thereby ruin countless, endless debates about whether it should be added to or removed from a particular article. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

stanley tookie williams

Resolved

Stanley Tookie Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

[redacted] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.127.17 (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a very serious allegation. I have removed it as unsourced. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, but in the future this sort of thing can be removed by any editor - just explain yourself using the edit summary. The Interior (Talk) 21:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Laurie Penny

Laurie Penny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hi I'm Laurie Penny, I'm very concerned that my biographical article has been hijacked by right-wing trolls. I'd like advice and help on - I quote - 'removing sections that grossly unbalance the biography's point of view and which are not justified by any encyclopedic need.'

Not only are my eating disorder and sex work history prominently and repeatedly referred to, unnecessarily so as they are only a small part of my early history, the 'politics' and 'career' sections are simply long list of criticisms made against me by libertarian and conservative opponents. the large amount of positive responses and successful campaigns my journalism and writing have generated are entirely ignore. the article reads as unbalanced. Is there any need to list people's responses to my work at all, can't people make up their own minds?

I'm quite young and unused to being this 'well known' and am fairly distressed by the fact that this has happened - like my identity is being rewritten by my enemies - so if someone could help I would be really really grateful. I'm not expecting the page to read like a panegyric, just a bit of balance and less weighting of my ignominous teenage years would be good.

I have taken the liberty of gong in and deleting some of these sections for now, I haven't changed anything as I'm probably not the right person to do so. I hope that's ok as a stop-gap until something more balanced can be written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.125.176 (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Laurie. I have watchlisted the page and will keep an eye on it in the future. Editing your own page is something we strongly advise against, so bringing the issue to a noticeboard like this without making any edits is the best route. Cheers, The Interior (Talk) 23:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thom Hartman -- progressive radio talk show moderator

I would just like to suggest that additional personal information be added to the Thom Hartman wikipedia entry. Examples of the information that I would like to see in this article are the following items:

1) Does Thom Hartman have any brothers and sisters? 2) Where did T.H. go to grade school and high school? Did he attend public schools, private schools or "other" (such as homeschooling)? 3) What is the name of his wife? When did they get married? where did Thom meet her? Is this his first and only marriage? 4) Does Thom Hartman have any children? Genders / names / ages, if possible. 5) Why / when / how did T.H. become so interested in ADD and ADHD? Did T.H. himself have hyperactivity disorders when he was a child? If so, does he believe that he currently has adult ADHD symptoms? 6) When / why did T.H. get so interested in herbal remedies? Does he still strongly believe in herbal and alternative healing remedies? Does he consider herbal remedies to be a good remedy for children with ADHD?

Okay -- that's all the questions that I have about Thom Hartman. Thanks for trying to update / clarify his wikipedia listing.

Sincerely,

(Mrs.) D.O. Naperville, IL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.169.108 (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I placed a "welcome' template and some other comments on the user's talk page. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Adam Guillette

The user has inappropriately created this entry. The subject created and edited the entry in order to promote another page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Guillette

From his facebook account:

"I was creating a page for CLPAC and found that it kept getting removed because it, 'wasn't relevant'.

Then I read that if something is linked to by other wikipedia pages it will be less likely to be removed. So I took what someone had written about me on the old 'gatorpedia' site, polished it with propaganda, posted it on wikipedia, and linked to CLPAC. And the CLPAC page has stayed up ever since."

The page he references is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Leadership_PAC

I suspect that neither page is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.69.136 (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I AFD'd it on the grounds of WP:NOTE. Let's see what happens. Quinn ^☂THUNDER 03:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I have AfD'd the org; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Leadership PAC. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Laurie Penny

Resolved

 – Hopefully without injury. --Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Laurie Penny. New Statesman political columnist. Hatchet job article, concerns from subject. Needs severe BLP axe and monitoring - David Gerard (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

See above - looks like most of the offensive content has been trimmed. The Interior (Talk) 23:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(slaps self upside head) This is what I get for posting in a steaming hurry without checking. Sorry about that. Thank you very much :-) - David Gerard (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Ricky Salmon

The article contains links which (I) Link to more than one doorway page domain (II) Repetition of the the same URL (III) Sites not related to the biography.

The additional link/references that relate to BigFish Media Wikipedia Entry are of concern as (I) The company is not a noteworthy company over and above any other or more reputable agencies. (II) The Big fish media stub reads like a commercial for the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonBournes1 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I've deleted the unrelated links, for a start. As for the article itself, it needs evidence for Salmon's notability from external sources, at minimum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Whittemore Peterson Institute

The Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI) is a somewhat controversial private scientific organisation known for its 2009 paper stating that a virus (XMRV) is associated with and probably causes chronic fatigue syndrome. Because of the intense interest in this problem, many scientists have tried to replicate these results, but at least ten groups have published negative results. Despite these conflicting reports, the Institute and its employees have made increasingly broad statements that have raised considerable concern in the scientific community, including that the virus also causes autism, fibromyalgia, Alzheimers, Parkinson's disease, and other conditions. The Institute is also going ahead with plans to start a medical clinic to treat patients with the putative viral infection with antiretroviral medications. For this purpose, they have hired a doctor who is a CFS patient; takes antiretrovirals in the belief that she is infected; and states that the virus is spread by vaccination. The consensus in the medical community is that there is currently no indication for taking these drugs and that anecdotal treatments are in any case of no help to the medical or disease communities.

At the same time, WPI's reported finding generated considerable interest in the CFS patient/advocate community, including a contingent of editors here on Wikipedia who are admirably energetic in advancing their views on the illness. They have raised BLP objections to the inclusion of various bits of verifiable information that they feel portray WPI or individual employees in a less than laudatory manner; these items are sourced to the New York Times, Nature and the Chicago Tribune.

Here are quotes of the items objected to at the article (sources in parentheses):

• Judy Mikovits [the research director] was introduced to the Whittemores and hired as the research director of WPI in 2006.(NYT) Mikovits had left the NCI and moved to California to get married in 2001.(NYT) Later, a patron in the yacht club where she was tending bar noticed her interest in viruses and put her in touch with a mutual friend of the Whittemore family.(NYT) As research director, Mikovits attempted to find a connection between CFS and infections, but was initially unsuccessful.(Nature)

In my view, none of this is derogatory, and it's very well sourced. The background of how the research director was hired is interesting and relevant, especially as it is somewhat unusual. Clearly, the New York Times thought so. The editors at the page, however, suggest that I am trying to portray the research director as a "bartender", not a scientist. She is not a bartender, and I am not trying to portray her as one: Mikovits worked at the National Cancer Institute for almost 20 years before moving to California, as stated elsewhere in the article. This information does tell us about how the Institute found its research director and why she joined (she was unemployed at the time, according to the New York Times).

• Jamie Deckoff-Jones, a doctor who has CFS and takes antiviral medications, is director of clinical services.(Chicago Tribune)

There is nothing derogatory here. It is relevant that the director of clinical services is herself a CFS patient (can empathise better with patients) and is taking the same drugs she might prescribe to her patients.

To what extent are these two passages, traced to impeccable sources, BLP violations? If violations, can these statements be worded alternatively in a manner that is both true to the facts and sources but less offensive to editors with passionate feelings for this Institute and its work? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Soham murders/Maxine Carr

A bit of a dispute in the Soham murders article, regarding Maxine Carr. The article contains an infobox about Carr which lists 'conviction(s)' as "Perverting the course of justice, Benefit fraud & Deception". Until recently the benefit fraud and deception convictions were unsourced, though after another editor noticed this and deleted them, a source was found. It should be noted that these convictions are not discussed in the article text itself, for the very good reason that they have nothing whatsoever to do with the Soham Murders. On that basis, I removed them again, making my reasoning clear in the edit summary: [7] Unfortunately, another editor is insisting on reinserting them, and it seems wise to get outside input on this, rather than engaging in an edit-war.

It should be noted that the Carr case has been contentious, and given the number of threats to her life, and assaults on innocent victims mistaken for her, she has been given a new identity. I have also been in discussion with the same editor regarding this matter, as s/he wishes an image of Carr to be included, whereas it seems possible that there may be legal issues regarding this, as discussed previously on BLP/N: [8]

Soham murders

The "Soham Murders" article notes that Maxine Carr "won an injunction on 24 February, 2005, granting her lifelong anonymity on the grounds that her life would otherwise be in danger from lynch mobs." Yet the article publishes a photograph of Maxine Carr. I believe the article is (1) endangering Maxine Carr and other women of similar appearance, and (2) in contempt of the court injunction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wodnala (talk • contribs) 11:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the photo and watchlisted the article.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that for ethical reasons, as well as in consideration of WP:BLP1E provisions, and taking into account the possible legal ramifications (though this may need clarifying), the Soham Murders article need only discuss Carr in regard to her part in providing Huntley with an alibi, and her subsequent conviction regarding this. Any attempt to widen this to include other aspects of her life are in any case off-topic in the article.

I'd appreciate others taking a look, and perhaps resolving the issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth bearing in mind that there could be a link between the fraud conviction and the case in that the fraud may have been discovered while Carr was being investigated for her part in trying to cover up the murders (as I believe it was). As far as carrying a photograph of her is concerned, I'm sure that ones of her from the time of the murders will be plastered all over the Web, so carrying one here wouldn't make a lot of difference.     ←   ZScarpia   01:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There were news reports of women being beaten up for resembling her. In this case, the fact that photos appear elsewhere doesn't really dictate that we need to have one in our article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

As can be seen, Google returns a large number of image results for Maxine Carr, dating to the time of the murders and before. Mary Bell] is also living under a new, protected identity. As can be seen, the Wikipedia article on her carries a photograph from the time of her trial.     ←   ZScarpia   04:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Google is not bound by Wikipedia's BLP policy, and Google results do not tell us how to apply that policy. Mary Bell is not much more than an example of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here; it seems vanishingly unlikely that people will attack a 53 year old grandmother because they think she looks like a picture of a 10 year old girl on Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The essential idea behind BLP is do-no-harm. If the pictures are common then there isn't any risk of harm. There's an argument that she's a minor enough figure in the article as a whole to not justify including a picture anyways. Let us ask, if this were a person mentioned in a random article with this level of detail would we include a photo given an opportunity? I'm not sure we would. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A couple of comments. Firstly, we need to remember that the article isn't about Carr, but the Soham murders - her only role was in providing an alibi for Huntley - and the courts accepted that she believed Huntley was innocent when she did this. On this basis, I'd suggest that there is little justification for the infobox at all, let alone an image. We do not normally include images of such minor figures in articles where they have only peripheral involvement. Sadly, the UK tabloid media chose to demonise her in the days following her arrest - which has had long-term consequences for others, as well as for herself. Even if there is no legal reason why we shouldn't include an image of her (and I note that this has not been addressed), there are certainly ethical ones - do we want to encourage the sort of vigilantism that has already led to hounding and assaults of multiple innocent people mistaken for her?

Secondly, the issue of whether Carr's unrelated convictions for benefit fraud and deception should be included has not been addressed. Again, I suggest the this is off-topic and irrelevant to the article. Since, despite notification of this thread, the editor insisting on this being included has chosen not to respond, I am going to remove this again, per WP:BLP1E etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The fraud and deception are clearly relevant to the topic of the article as that is how she became employed at the school the girls attended and over her deception about living with Huntly to get housing benefit. Keith D (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic (or your grammar). How were the fraud and deception connected to the murders? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• I personally believe Maxine should remain on the article as per previous revision.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Second point first from Andy the Grumps latest big post; The news reports at the time of her secondary convictions noted that they were only in the public interest due to the linking with the Soham Case. As for removal please discuss on the talk page of the article before taking ownership and demanding removal.

As for the first point just because people do things based on factual information it’s not a reason for not doing something. Wheat next we don’t post articles about robbery in case there are copy cats or articles on murders in case victims families get upset that the victim and the perpetrator are in the same article. It’s just a non-argument for the removal. It was also said no harm is caused as the image at the time of the trial her image was plastered every when and the BBC still run her old image so I think this is a case of legal paranoia. The addition of her image on Wikipedia will do no harm what so ever and did no harm what so ever when it was previously included.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

For-profit news outlets may claim all manner of things they do are "in the public interest", that doesn't necessarily mean we have to believe them or feel pressured by such often self-serving claims.

You assert that the inclusion of the image will do no harm to anyone and that it did no harm in the past. However, you offer no evidence for this, in fact it would be almost impossible to provide convincing evidence for this - we know that there have been attacks on innocent people in the belief that they were Carr, and we know that Wikipedia is an increasingly widely used source for news and reference information.

Your use of a Slippery slope logical fallacy is not a convincing argument for inclusion - yes we do in fact have all manner of limitations on how we discuss robberies and murders, including WP:BLP1E. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The image was non-free; aside from the BLP issues for inclusion of this photo I don’t think it met WP:NFCC#8 ("presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic"). January (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no evidence to the contrary that the harm was caused. There is no way to prove a negative as proving the absence of something is nigh on impossible, take the arguments surrounding religon for example. There is no evidence of harm being caused so de-facto no harm was caused. I will take your argument more seriously if you can provide evidence that any form of harm was caused. Just because there are copy cats of things doesn't mean factual information should not be included. If copycat people are allowed to dictate what can and cannot be included then there is no end of what must be removed. I am not attempting to have a debate on the image itself but this is more of a discussion on a user claiming a legal injunction must prevent the addition of factual information on Wikipedia. It is a slippery slope because the identical argument can be applied to similar cases such as other crimes; take the Jamie Bulger killing do we remove the information on the re-arrest of Jon Venables, because he has an immunity injunction. Just because we dislike something or we think someone might do something based on what’s in an article, is not a valid reason for the removal of something. The only valid reason is it is either not-relevant to the article or it is factually incorrect or un-sourced/not verifiable. The image is factual and relevant to the article, weather it falls in the fair use exemption is another debate as is the undue weight debate. Legal threats being spewed are just a form of legal paranoia and are not a valid reason for removal. If there are genuine legal concerns eg over copyright then they should be considered but being paraniod over a court injunction which relates to the presant and future and not the past has no weight in arguments as it is not relevant.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, your statement that "there is no evidence to the contrary that the harm was caused" is just plain wrong. Women have been hounded and assaulted as a result of being misidentified as Carr, by people who had seen pictures of her. Where they saw them is irrelevant - any further images can only increase the chances of this recurring. Regarding the legal situation, there have been no 'threats' as far as I'm aware. An editor (not me) suggested that including an image might be "in contempt of the court injunction". Either this is true or it isn't, and debates over whether it is "paranoia" can only be resolved by someone with appropriate legal training - our opinions on the matter are of no relevance here.

As for the image being "factual and relevant to the article", that is for us to decide according to policy, and by consensus. So far, I've seen policy-based arguments regarding why the image should not be included, but none for inclusion other than 'I think it should be'. As always, it is for those wishing to include items in an article to provide adequate reasons to.

Finally, I note that you have not responded to my suggestion that the benefit fraud and deception convictions are off-topic for an article on the Soham murders, and should therefore be excluded. Can I assume you agree? If not, can you explain your reasoning? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note silence is not agreement or consensus and also please see comments from others and my own which state "The news reports at the time of her secondary convictions noted that they were only in the public interest due to the linking with the Soham Case". also one of the convictions directly relates to living with Huntley and one direcdtly to working at the school. I shall respond to you above comments later. I would suggest reading more fully all of the comments by all users before making your own inferences and incorrect conclusions.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it she claimed that she was living alone to gain extra benefits, and made some false statement on a job application (and who [besides me] hasn't done that). None of which have anything to do with the murders. John lilburne (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The public interest test was based on her link to the murders. And Fraud is Fraud regardless. Lieing on a job application is still Lieing. The convictions were widely reported and her links to the murder are the only reason they came to light so with out the Murders and if the murders hadn't hapened she would not have been subsequently convicted.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Again what does any of that have to do with the murders? I notice that the article also mentions two of the police officers in connection to operation ore and one of the unsourced statements in that section says "poor presentation of prosecution evidence by a computer expert caused the trial to be stopped." you do know that operation ore was based from the start of flawed evidence and that there are now compensation pay outs being awarded by the courts because of false prosecutions. John lilburne (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact the offences only came to light because of the Murder inquiries and related to working closley with the girls and living with Huntley. The other case is not a relevant comparison. The sources provided give ample linkage to the Murders and the discovery of the later offences.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

And you are ignoring the fact that the offences still had nothing whatsoever to do with the murders. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You are being deliberatly obtuse, by not seeing the convictions would never have occured if the murders ahd not occured, so they are linked.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that it was good thing that the girls got murdered otherwise Maxine Carr would never have been found out. John lilburne (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What total slanderous nonsence.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ahem cough cough. John lilburne (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You have stated I support murder as a furtherance of the criminal justice system which is a patnt ammount of tripe and is sheer loonacy. As for the other user they are being intentionally obstructive by not reading comments I post and are getting over the top over it. Both comments are more than justified.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm being obtuse? Really? Yes, according to your arguments, the convictions are linked. But then so are a multitude of things - like this debate. We wouldn't be arguing if the murders hadn't occurred. Should we include this discussion in the article too? Incidentally, how do you know that Carr wouldn't have been found out without the murder investigation? Either give a rational argument for why the convictions are relevant to an article about the murders, or stop wasting people's time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Get off your high horse and stop making absurd claims of time wasting. She would not have been found out about living with Huntley and as such the benefit fraud would not have been discovered.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

So you aren't going to tell us why you think the convictions are relevant to an article about the murders? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Read what i have said and you will find the reasoning. Stop being intentionally ignorant and actually read the comments. I shall state the reasons again just for you. The convictions would not have occured with if the murderds had not occured and the public interest test was based on Carrs link with the murders.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"Stop being intentionally ignorant". ROFL. Since you cannot come up with a rational argument (or even a rational insult), I can only assume you haven't got one. You clearly don't understand Wikipedia policy regarding permissible article content. Since the majority of postings here seem to indicate that Carr only needs to be discussed in the article in as much as she was directly involved, I am going to remove any mention of the fraud and deception convictions from the article, and suggest that before you attempt to reinsert them, you read WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:SYN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You are not worth trying to have a rational discussion with. It appears as if you are hell bent on dismissing other people’s valid points as irrational because they do not fit in with you ridiculous interpretations of Wikipolicy. None of it is OR it it is from reliable news sources and none of it is there for the sake of it. It was all widely reported and linked with the Murders, even if tenuously. I also believe you are taking a paranoia approach to BLP by removing anything which may hurt someone’s feelings or give an ambulance chasing lawyer his no win no fee, unwinnable and hopless case of the week. Finally as for any of it being Synthesis, you are blatantly guilty of that by taking an unrelated court injunction and applying it to a fact based account of an historic event. What next we stop the Encyclopaedia Britannica from publishing and article on the case and including her picture and convictions, give me break. It is time to stop Wikilawyering and return to reality. The reasons provided by now multiple users and not just me give more than enough counter balance to dismiss you nonsensical arguments based on Wikiparanoia. The legal argument has now succinctly been clarified by ianmacm, so stop being paranoid over the injunction.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

My 2p worth: Despite the attempts of the British tabloid press to turn Maxine Carr into a new version of Myra Hindley, her role in the Soham Murders was limited to lying in an alibi for Ian Huntley. The mugshot of her is a famous part of the case, and it may be overcautious to remove it altogether. The benefits fraud conviction in 2004 is not hugely notable and need not be mentioned unless it impacts directly on the murders, which it does not appear to. The article stresses that bored morons have attacked the wrong woman while believing her to be Maxine Carr. This makes the use of an image of her less than ideal, but a Google image search [9] will provide what are admittedly out of date images, as the case received huge media coverage at the time.

On the legal angle (IANAL), there is nothing wrong with using material that is already in the public domain (eg the photos of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables). The Maxine Carr injunction is designed to prevent people from giving her current whereabouts in the media. The main issue with Maxine Carr is WP:BLP1E, and whether this makes it unnecessary to show an image of her.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that as a BLP1E there is no good reason within policy and guidelines to include any detail about Carr apart from what is directly connected to the murders, that does not include her previous minor convictions.- the article is not about Carr's life story, it is about the murder of the two girls. I also don't see any reason for Carr to have an infobox in the article either. Off2riorob (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Since Lucy-marie seems convinced of the merits her arguments, and I am of mine, I suspect that the best way to resolve this would be via a WP:RfC. I'm not sure whether this should be done on the article talk page, or here. Basically, there seem to be two things to settle: (a) Should an image of Maxine Carr be included in the Soham murders article (assuming that a copyright-free one is available, and the legal situation is clarified by someone who is qualified to say), and (b) Should Carr's benefit fraud and deception convictions be mentioned in the article. It might be best if an uninvolved person started the RfC in the appropriate place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think its really needed - there is enough support within policy to remove the previous convictions and there is no commons license and a non free use pic doesn't seem to have consensus to include so the outcome of a RFC seems pretty clear from this discussion already. Off2riorob (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

note - user Lucy marie is requesting full protection of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There are unlikely to be any legal ramifications, see also Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber. There are plenty of images of Carr in UK online news sources, the past cannot be airbrushed. What really matters is whether she is wikinotable enough for an image and an infobox. Also agree that this is best resolved on the talk page rather than here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, legal ramifications are likely close to zero, but that is not a reason to relax our adherence to policy and guidelines (not that you have suggested that) Its quite insightful to read the so called BLP we used to have for Carr, and the talkpage is good to see that such issues as pic or no pic are nothing new.Talk:Maxine Ann Carr - Yes, this is washed up here, I think to end the issue a :RFC on the article talkpage is required. Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Lots to digest - but I find no reason at all for the personal material about Carr to be in the article about the murders. And the trivia about 'how much it costs" is completely irrelevant. I commented out the material as a result. And, for some odd reason, I suggest that material not even tangentially related to the named topic of the article does not actually belong in the article. Collect (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Like the Murder of Sarah Payne, the Soham murders have become part of the British tabloid press obsession with naming and shaming "paedos". This needs to be reflected in the article. This aspect of the case has been widely discussed in reliable secondary sources. The fact that innocent women have been attacked is largely due to repeated tabloid hype about the case, which the article makes clear.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not and ought not be a "tabloid." That a "tabloid" sensationalizs something does not mean that we also ought do so. We are not Enquiropedia. Really. Though some seem to think it is. Collect (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia is not a tabloid. What the article does is to show how tabloid coverage of the case has distorted public perceptions. There are citations about this aspect of the case from multiple reliable sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

To the talk page we go, where I explain why I reverted Lucy-marie's re-inserted of the offending material. I urge editors to refrain from adding possibly contentious BLP material while this discussion is ongoing. This is not some argument about the genre of some metal band or whether some long-dead person was a philanderer: this is a BLP, and we should err on the side of caution. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The Death of Kent Leppink

The death of Kent Leppink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is mostly about the trial of Mechele Linehan. It looks like the title was changed after previous criticisms by multiple readers and editors.

In the past I made some improvements without changing the original article much, and added details with accompanying references (many more than the initial author) multiple times, but each time I do someone follows right behind and deletes all of my contributions. Today I added more details about the trial and appeal and I included source references, but all of my work was immediately deleted. I've added my contribution again, but no doubt she or he will delete it again. It has much more detail, corrected typos, and many more references now, and it discusses a still living person facing another trial, so it is unethical to delete verifiable information.

This report was made by User:Akminister - Off2riorob (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history you have been repeatedly requested to discuss on the talkpage and you are massively expanding the article diff, with primary citations such as this http://touchngo.com/ap/html/ap-2253.htm and http://cmm.lefora.com/2010/09/21/kent-leppink-mechele-kaye-hughes-conviction-thrown and other such issues - I can only suggest you take some time to read some wikipedia policies and guidelines and then discuss and present your desired additions on the article talkpage section by section for discussion and assessment from additional editors. Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Andrew_Cohen_(spiritual_teacher)

Andrew_Cohen_(spiritual_teacher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello. Can anyone who is familiar with Wikipedia's libel rules and the biographies of living persons policy have a look at this page, particularly the "Criticisms" section and the links to critical websites below it, and see if such a negative attack on a living person is accepted by Wikipedia? This article is that of a popular American spiritual teacher, and a certain faction of his ex-students consistently maintain this section on his biography page, despite all attempts to minimize it. But very few other teachers, even known controversial ones, have this on their pages...

Thank you. --Kosmocentric (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The two blogs shouldn't be used as sources, or even mentioned unless there are reliable secondary sources for them. However, even excluding those, it's the best-sourced part of the article.   Will Beback  talk  06:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed mention of the two blogs. I agree that the rest looks fine. JoshuaZ (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Urban Ahlin

Urban Ahlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article on sexual harassment is not in line with wikipedias policy. Expressen is a tabloid. I feel sorry for the guy

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth Conquer (talk • contribs) 14:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I have removed it, since Expressen is listed in their article as a tabloid it does not appear to be a reliable source for negative information about a living person. GB fan (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

GB fan - tabloid in many European countries refers to the dimensions of the publication and is unrelated to the content. A note should be left at WP:RSN as it appears to be a national news publication in Sweden. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up: I have left a note at WP:RSN regarding the reliability of Expresssen and the use of "tabloid" as a descriptor. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

For what it is worth, running the Swedish Wikipedia article on Ahlin through Google translate shows that the allegations aren't mentioned there. [10] I'd suggest that without further sources, this is best omitted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't suggesting restoring the information without discussion, I'd just like to clarify the use of the word tabloid in this case. The first step after removal should be to discuss the reliability of the source; if it is a gossip rag then any further discussion as to WP:UNDUE and such becomes moot. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC) --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are the details, two articles in the same (online part of the) publication written by the same person on the same day, translated via google - one, two, written by Niklas Svensson on the ninth November 2010 - content talks about allegations from two years previous. (circa 2008) - I was wondering if this led to any charges or if it was widely reported? Following content is cited to these two articles. It was added (strangely enough, on the ninth November 2010 - the same day both articles were published) in a single edit by an IP from Sweden with only one edit and no welcome template.Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

"I'm not accused of it, nor has it ever been. I had been accused of it I wish that someone had gone to the police so that it had investigated." ......quote from Alin, for discussion purposes only from the linked diff. Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of sexual harassment

On 9 November 2010 the tabloid Expressen wrote that Ahlin was the subject of allegations of sexual harassment against a female co-worker at the Social Democratic Party's parliamentary office. The unnamed sources cited by the newspaper said that Ahlin, among other things, had tried to enter the woman's hotel room during a drip to Washington, D.C. in 2008. He was also accused of having sent SMS messages with sexual content to the woman during political meetings. According to the source, the woman was transferred to a different job after the incident in exchange for promises to keep quiet.

Social Democratic Party leader Mona Sahlin was informed of the allegations shortly after the trip. Ahlin was also reprimanded by the party's parliamentary group leader Sven-Erik Österberg after the incident: "I was very clear. It's not acceptable that anyone should feel violated in a job situation. I discussed that with him in very sharp terms. I also stated that this may not be repeated in any way", Österberg said. Ahlin himself denied all allegations of sexual harassment. (reply to Q below - I posted it, it is the content that the two citations were supporting, I suppose the Q would be, is the incident notable enough and well sourced enough and compliant with WP:weight, and WP:BLP and well known to be replaced. Off2riorob (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC))

Who posted the above and what is the question?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Vito Roberto Palazzolo

Vito Roberto Palazzolo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Has an SPA on Mafiosi who appears not to have read WP:BLP. Request another pair of patient eyes thereon. I suspect that "contentious" does not cover this adequately. I suspect he may have similar problems on other BLPs. Collect (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This has already been posted above. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Bill Proctor

Bill Proctor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Poorly sourced, possibly politically biased or libelous information. I don't know anything about the guy but randomly looked him after someone I know made a comment about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.9.188.20 (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I did a bit of improvement - removed a whole critical section in this edit with the edit summary of - trim - unreliable citations - dead link unable to repair and primary comments. The article was basically a hatchet job attack article, still needs a little improvement, perhaps some actual details about his life and some work on the citations. Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Good work, Off2.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Simon Southerton

Simon Southerton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The last paragraph, added in April 9, 2011 may have been written by someone with an axe to grind against Mr. Southerton. It seems to be factually untrue as the link below that is to an article that states Mr. Southerton was excummunicated from the LDS Church after his opinions became public. The wording, in addition to be grammitically incorrect in a spot or two, could be taken as a derisive attack on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrty22 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue. I've removed the section in question - which clearly didn't meet WP:NPOV, and probably not WP:BLP either - and left a caution notice for the user responsible. I've also watchlisted the article, as I'm sure this won't go away soon. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Also the entire article is rather weakly sourced for accusations and controversy such as it still includes. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Diego Arria

Diego Arria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone please disabuse User:Attarparn of the notion that a minor blog is an acceptable source for an image at Diego Arria? (I'm not too happy about his edit summary either, especially as I've previously explained a similar issue to him about sourcing a PDF document to a blog and believing the blog's claims of provenance). Rd232 ^talk 00:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait, it gets more complicated. I've just seen that after I removed the picture, an OTRS verification was added to the Commons page of the image. To what extent can this ticket be relied upon as verification? It should surely be explicitly attributed to the article subject, at least - so how would it be cited? Rd232 ^talk 00:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Terry Richardson

Terry Richardson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article Terry Richardson, which I have just filled with tags, is ugly. At least two sources for Terry Richardson#Sexual-abuse allegations appear unreliable,[11][12] but if I remove the contributions I fear User:Gregorik and probably User:Spanglej will revert me. Gregorik has proven willing to revert war,[13][14] while Spanglej has not replied to me in Talk:Terry Richardson#abuse allegations. DinDraithou (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh and "In interviews, Richardson has described his attitude and approach." originally read "In interviews, Richardson has confirmed his behavior.",[15] before I corrected it. DinDraithou (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ungodly mess with one editor insisting on inserting prurient and other claims not backed by reliable sources. Collect (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it was and to some extent remains pretty horrific. That editor has actually linked to new sources, which we should keep, where Richardson's prominent defenders, of whom I was unaware, are mentioned and quoted. The problem is that he appears to be insisting on a completely negative POV for Wikipedia in the article, and could be on his way to getting in real trouble for it. DinDraithou (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on the article, btw. I was worried no one would come to help. DinDraithou (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Chris Huhne

Chris Huhne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This BLP reads to me as if its a bit of a partisan attack. I did a few hours work on it last year only to be totally reverted by a user three weeks later. The situation is ongoing, users come along read it and get a similar feeling as I got and edit it to a less partisan position and it is just reverted to the previous position again, would anyone with a neutral position on British politics have a read over it, as I remember there were some low quality tabloidy cites and some content than needed a NPOV write, I have added a NPOV template as there is clearly a dispute but I have not recently edited the article, there is a little discussion on the talkpage. If it helps this is what I edited it to. Off2riorob (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look over it, there are a few things that immediately jump out but I'm a little busy for now. The first thing I notice is that we are citing his full name from a grissly attack piece in the daily mail, is there not a better source for that? Bob House 884 (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

No hurry , no worry, I appreciate any opinions as regards the content for improvement and NPOV assessment. Off2riorob (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Rob: I don't know enough about British politics to be of help re NPOV, but was there a particular BLP concern at issue? Must be frustrating, btw, to put in this much work and then to have people come along and just change it all... Um, that didn't sound right; I didn't mean it tongue-in-cheek, at all, but seriously. Anyway, was there any particular BLP issue that concerned you?  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That is the issue as with don carlo above - when an article is edited to an undue weighted position amounting to what is basically a partisan attack article, that is the BLP problem, weight, npov and undue all build up to be the BLP issue. This issue as I have seen with involved contributors on the article reverting with the claim of all cited content is notable is a difficult issue to balance out. Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, just so. I wish I knew something about British politics and could help sort this, but I wouldn't know NPOV from POV in that context without loads of research. I'd enjoy educating myself in that, actually, but no time to do so just now, I regret to say. Good luck, then.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

BLP and dead people

Does BLP apply to someone dead 40, 50, 100 years? It's getting silly. Merrill Stubing (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Officially - no. Should it? A deep philosophical issue. IMO, it ought to apply a great deal more than some others appear to feel. Collect (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking for permission to add unsourced or poorly sourced contentious claims? Such things should still be removed - the only issue is urgency. With BLPs, it's urgent and with non-BLPs, you can consider, if the claim isn't too ridiculous, adding a {{fact}} tag instead of immediately removing it. --B (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Our BLP policy states: "This policy does not apply to edits about the dead...But questionable material about dead people which has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, should be removed promptly." Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't investigated the revision history fully, so I don't know whether the notion that our policy on biographies of living persons also applies to dead people is a recent addition or not. We certainly want to respect the dignity of biography subjects to the greatest extent we can that's consistent with telling the truth, whether they're alive or dead, but I'd think it would have been called something different to reflect this notion if that had been the intent.

Something like "our policy on biographies of living persons and of deceased ones who have living friends or relatives". This isn't the place to discuss policy or policy changes at length ( that's what the BLP page's talk page is for ) but I think it's worth observing here that I did notice there has been some controversy about this passage, less than three months ago, in January 2011.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It's hard sorting through the history, but it appears that the section on deceased persons was first added on January 4, 2009. See here. I've found discussion of it earlier (in 2007). See here, but without looking more deeply, have not been able to find any contemporaneous transfer from the 2007 discussion to the policy itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If someone famous and living has a dead mother, and the Wikipedia article about the mother includes a lot of unsourced crud, it seems reasonable to look at the two articles holistically as a single BLP. Stuff could be put in the mother's article to make the kid look bad (e.g. she was a criminal, had mental problems, had weird sex habits, wore army boots, et cetera).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Adel Sedra article, controversy section

Resolved

 – content removed and revisions deleted

Adel Sedra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm writing to flag the biography of Adel Sedra, which was recently updated to include a "controversy" section, which is basically a link to two local newspaper articles about a dispute with a solar car racing team at the University of Waterloo (where he is dean of engineering). The controversy section now constitutes approximately half of his entry, entirely disproportionate for someone who is one of Canada's leading engineers and has been a vice president at the University of Toronto and dean of engineering at the University of Waterloo. Moreover, this issue is contentious and has not been settled. I feel like the inclusion of the entire newspaper article (and for that matter, the whole section) is inappropriate.

Many thanks for your attention.

Sincerely,

Geoff Burt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffrey.Burt (talk • contribs) 15:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You were correct to revert the edit and remove the section for two reasons. It had greatly undue weight in the over-all bio as you surmised. It also looks like a cut and paste of a newspaper article. If I am correct about this, there were also copyright issues. The content could possibly be re-introcuced as a carefully phrased, reliably sourced sentence in the article, not its own section--though it seems like a minor enough incident I could argue that either way. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• - note to passing administrator - there is a Revdel request on a couple of edits at this article Adel Sedra - Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Done, in passing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Many thanks Zzuuzz - seems resolved then, the article now has a few more active watching editors, so I think this can be marked as resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The Video Game Critic

I'm starting a discussion here about a contentious section being added to The Video Game Critic's article. If this is the wrong venue, I apologize, and ask that you direct me to a better one.

Kajicat (talk · contribs) is proposing to add a section[16] to the article that discusses alleged homophobia in The Video Game Critic's game reviews. This section is sourced to the reviews themselves, as well as to a forum thread on the Video Game Critic's website. I don't believe that meets our standard for reliable sourcing for such a claim, and I haven't found any reliable secondary sources that repeat the claim, so I've removed the section. Both Kajicat and I have reverted three times; I don't intend to revert again.

I would like an outside opinion as to whether this sourcing is adequate to include this claim. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The sourcing is not adequate for the section as written (or any mention at all, in my view). Some people posting some things on a forum about David Mrozek's actions, and then David Mrozek asking for further feedback about that criticism of his actions, does not make a controversy. It needs completely independent reliable sources to discuss there being a controversy, otherwise it shouldn't be in the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Demiurge1000, if I can name it as something other than "Controversy", will that be okay? Should I put it under the "Reviews" section then? Just as long as it isn't labeled as something so negative as "Controversy?" I'm okay with that. What would you be okay with me naming it as if you don't think it should be under the "Reviews" section? Also, you say the sourcing is not adequate for the section as written...well, I have about 10 more sources I haven't used yet, which are just like the ones I've used thus far (referenced straight to the actual reviews themselves). These distasteful reviews were brought to my attention, and it turns out others have brought it up before, even on The Video Game Critic's own website and forum, where he even created his own thread to ask his readers what he should do about it (in 2005). Thanks for your input, and I hope you can understand my viewpoint here.Kajicat (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Kajicat

What the section is called, or whereabouts in the article the material goes, is not the issue. If it is only you, me, other Wikipedia editors, and people posting to forums who see this material as distasteful, then mention of it does not belong in the article. What you need are references to independent reliable sources that discuss the distasteful nature of the material (or discuss the existence of a controversy about the allegedly distasteful nature of the material). Forum posts and a request for comment by Mrozek do not meet that requirement, even if it's several thousand forum posts. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with above. You'll need to find some sort of trade magazine or other independent source- something that is generally accepted as objective in discussing the issue- in order for you proposed edits to stand. Quinn ^☂THUNDER 04:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, there is a whole bunch of sources generally considered reliable in the field of video games at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#List. The extent to which any of those have discussed homophobic material in the website in question, will decide whether it's justifiable for the topic not to be mentioned at all, to have a brief mention (half a sentence to a sentence) or a separate section. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If I can't have a "Controversy" section, can I at least add a sentence or so in either the "History" or "Reviews" section that isn't so negative, but more along the lines of...confusion...as to whether The Video Game Critic was going to continue writing in the style he has been, or clean up his writings and act more professional and politically correct? Is that okay with you guys? It seems you might be some Video Game Critic fans, and I don't want to purposefully be stepping on any toes.Kajicat (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Kajicat

Kevin Stallings

Kevin Stallings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

citations needed for last two sentences in Head Coaching Jobs Vanderbilt sections — Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyDore (talk • contribs) 00:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

All sources echo what the wiki contributor is saying, and it's referenced well enough" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.93.68 (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree with TommyDore. I don't understand what the IP is saying. I added a template for the whole article because it has almost no sources. I added specific templates for more controversial unsourced assertions, including the ones Tommy is talking about.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Betty Jean Baumgartner

Resolved

 – editor is looking for WP:Article creation

(removed uncited personal details of what appears to be a not wiki notable person - Off2riorob (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjbaum420 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know. As is customary, I have left a handy menu of links on your talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Nadhmi Auchi

Nadhmi Auchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Apologies if this is long-winded, it's the first time I've posted anything on here:

In 2009, I edited the entry for Nadhmi Auchi to include his 2003 conviction for fraud, providing several links to verifiable sources. This information has been repeatedly removed by a series of anonymous or temporary editor accounts, without explanation.

The rest of the article is highly congratulatory in tone; I don't know whether this alone makes it non-NPOV, but it is perhaps of relevance given the repeated removal of less flattering information.

Auchi has also been the subject of a number of allegations involving his business dealings in Iraq and the US. Whatever their veracity (obviously this isn't the place to discuss), it's worth noting that Auchi has contested these allegations vigorously, and his lawyers have compelled various news outlets in the UK to remove material related to him from their websites as a result.

Given the above, I am concerned that these repeated edits are an attempt to excise negative information about Auchi from Wikipedia, regardless of whether or not it's accurate and verifiable. Being only an occasional editor myself, I'm not sure what to do in such situations, but would urge attention be paid to his entry to prevent future vandalism.

Smells like content (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• - I ll add it to my watchlist, the details could use an update though, seems to be left mid air in 2008. Off2riorob (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I've removed some of the unverified information and an all-too flattering statement. There is/was some definite vanispam there. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

J. Philippe Rushton

Critics of J. Philippe Rushton in several instances want to only present criticisms against Rushton while excluding opposing views.

The lead now states: "Since 2002 he has been head of the controversial Pioneer Fund, an organization that has been widely criticized for financing research that promotes Scientific Racism and has been frequently associated with racism and White Supremacy." This if of course an extremely serious charge. Despite this, the critics refuse to allow opposing views from sources such as the preface to Richard Lynn's book about the Fund The Science of Human Diversity: A History of the Pioneer Fund. The preface which is available online: [17]. Or a review of the book published in scholarly journal by the Rushton before he became head: [18]. Or the view of the Funt itself regarding these accusations: [19].

Another section where the critics only want to allow critical views is the "Application of r/K selection theory to race". There are numerous supporting views. Around 26 peer-reviewed studies by around 40 different researchers and around 10 different lead researchers are listed here: Race, Evolution, and Behavior#Later favorable studies. To only include critical views is a gross misrepresentation of the state of research. Miradre (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The sources that Miradre is attempting to insert into these articles are generally questionable sources (and generally ones closely associated with Rushtom and/or his Pioneer Fund), employed in violation of the restrictions contained in WP:SELFPUB. It should also be noted that this issue has been extensively discussed at WP:FTN#J. Philippe Rushton. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 13:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

They are reliable sources with possible exception of the material by the Fund itself (the third source). Richard Lynn is a researcher who has written a book about the history of the Fund. Rushton's review was published in the scientific journal Personality and Individual Differences before he became head of the Fund. Regarding the Fund material I think it should be allowed to state its view on the very serious accusations against it. I take this discussion here because the critics continue to only want to include these very serious accusations without including any opposing views.Miradre (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Richard Lynn serves on the Pioneer Fund's board, and that of its Mankind Quarterly (described as "a white supremacist journal"), his Ulster Institute for Social Research received $609,000 in grants from the Pioneer Fund between 1971 and 1996. Further the reference is not to material Lynn himself wrote, but to the preface by "Harry F. Weyher, President, The Pioneer Fund". I think this qualifies as a "extremist, or promotional" source, per WP:QS. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Lynn is a widely cited researcher. That he has connections with the Fund does not make his research invalid. The same with the Rushton review which appeared in a scholarly journal. This material is not self-published and fulfill the criteria for WP:RS.Miradre (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"Rushton's review" was published in Personality and Individual Differences of which Rushton's thesis advisor (S. B. G. Eysenck) is one of the editors in chief, and whose overly cozy relationship with Rushton, a third party (Knudson P. (1991), A Mirror to Nature: Reflections on Science, Scientists, and Society, at (I think) pp175) has commented upon. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean to prove with a twenty years old article. Furthermore, your claims are just strange. Hans Eysenck died in 1997. The book and review is from 2001 and 2002! Miradre (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've already addressed that point (and pretty much everything else you've said here) on article talk. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You have not. Your claim of a cozy relationship between Rushton and Eysenck at that time is obviously false. You have not replied regarding the book itself being published by a widely cited researcher. If you have a reply, then present it here for those reviewing.Miradre (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that the best route at this time is to allow uninvolved editors comment if they feel there is some sort of BLP violation. aprock (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents: the best place to fully document charges and responses is the Pioneer Fund. The Rushton should only summarize the most significant charges, which it appears to do. The current state of the article seems to do this well. I think the deleted sentence "The Fund, Rushton, and the prior head have criticized these accusations and argue that the Fund has funded much important but controversial research." is a perfectly acceptable way of including a response, but I think this response belongs in the body. The lede shouldn't be the place to hash out competing claims but should be a summary of the consensus opinion. Since the Fund's opinion is a distinctly minority/fringe viewpoint, it doesn't belong there. Gamaliel (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• Agree entirely with Hrfan's position here -- the article as it stands doesn't pose any BLP problems for Rushton.

Sarah Geronimo

This is problematic: editors keep reinserting unsourced content, specifically, long lists of awards. The latest such addition is this one. Look at the history. I've twice reverted the addition of this material and in my opinion that was once too many already; it's put back again. I notified the last editor to do so on their talk page of this discussion, but the history of the article seems to suggest that this is a regularly recurring event, with editors who edit only a limited number of articles. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it the list or the lack of sourcing that you object to? If the former, why not create a List of awards and achievements of Sarah Geronimo (or something like that) article? If the latter, unless you honestly feel the information is wrong/inacurate, slap a {Unreferenced} or {Refimprove} tag on it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I did slap such a template on it, yes. I kind of object to both. I believe that in an unverified state such a list should not be there--it smacks of fansite/promotion. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I moved them to the talkpage and left some advice Talk:Sarah Geronimo#uncited awards - many of them will likely never get cited as they look of minor note to me. Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough--thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I will keep my eye on the BLP also as simple replacement of uncited content to a BLP when disputed and removed is not an option. I will also offer the editor/s any assistance I can as regards, formating citations and such like. Off2riorob (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Jesse Vargas

Jesse Vargas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, I'm a representative that works for Jessie Vargas and we have noticed that his name has been spelled incorrectly. Can you please correct this as soon as possible? The correct spelling of his name is: Jessie Vargas page url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Vargas. Thank you for your help in resolving this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig2kenneth (talk • contribs) 22:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

• - note - I left a request for comment at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#name claim - Jesse Vargas - Off2riorob (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

C2k, We've no proof that you are, who you claim to be. Anyways, what name are you claiming to be correct? GoodDay (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Every cited source I've looked at in the article (and I stopped after a few) uses "Jessie", not "Jesse".--Bbb23 (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

This is his Twitter account, although I don't know how to verify that it's "official". I have now seen sources that use the spelling "Jesse". I've even seen one source that uses "Jesse" and then points to his Twitter account that says "Jessie".--Bbb23 (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Dave Chappelle

Dave Chappelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On Dave Chappelle's bio page, there is a description of Dave Chappelle having an extra marital affair with the wife of Bill Schnarr, a Comedy Central co-producer on The Chappelle Show. There was no reference to this description and the word marital was misspelled. This seems fishy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmcduffee (talk • contribs) 22:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the affair sentences from the article. I've also removed some other very contentious material that is unsourced and violates BLP. There is still a fair amount of garbage in the article, some of which is sourced to Inside the Actors Studio. I've seen this before. Does it satisfy verifiability? It's one thing to say that I've seen a movie or a TV show and use that to describe the plot, for example, but to say that the subject uses drugs because supposedly he said so on an Actors Studio episode - isn't that a bit much? It could only be contested by someone who has access to the same episode.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Margot Roosevelt

Was a stub. I added New York Times non-contentious facts. All of which are removed as being "demeaning." Frankly, I did not know that being from a major family was "demeaning" but it apparently is. Might someone else look there and see if the New York Times articles violate WP:BLP in any way whatsoever? I had thought I was doing the stub a favour, instead I get pounded on for somehow demeaning a person for giving a source that she came from a prominent family and was presented at a ball covered in the New York Times. The other rationale for deleting information is that it is "trivia" to mention that she comes from a quite notable family. Thanks. Collect (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

In response to the cavil that debutantes do not get that fact mentioned in their biographies - more than 100 do, and more than 50 men have their wives described as debutantes. And a large bunch of cricketers, though I suspect the term "rookie" is more familiar to many. Collect (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion underway about her attendance at a debutante ball in 1968 on the Talk page of the article. And as one editor said, the issue is not the prominence of her family, but just the ball. I think it's premature to come here. For what it's worth, I think it's trivia, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You removed "Roosevelt has a degree in history from Harvard University". She has two children." You then entered, "She was introduced to society in 1968 at the 33rd Christmas Cotillion at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York".[20] This is code for saying she is an elitist. Her status as a debutante does not rise to the level of relevance in such a short article. TFD (talk) 00:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Gilles Poisson / Charles Berger name errata

There is a mistake concerning the real name of Gilles "The Fish" Poisson. His real name was Gilles Poisson. My grandmother is her cousin and i am able to point out family sources (including Gilles himself) Also, an article was written by SLAM! Magazine in 2009 : http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/2009/05/09/9406661.html. Please consider correcting this mistake. Mario Lévesque Grandson of Lucienne Poisson, cousin of Gilles Poisson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.255.241 (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I found no reliable source for the "Berger" name at all. Collect (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

• - detail - Charles Berger (wrestler) is currently the claimed WP:COMMON NAME - Gilles Poisson and Pierre Poisson are currently redirects to that name. Off2riorob (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Jill Farren Phelps

I reverted edits here, noting BLP concerns with the additions; however, the user makes the fair point that the prior version also has many issues. If anyone can help fix this article, I'd appreciate it. Best,  Chzz  ►  06:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)