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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:36, 21 October 2011

Skip to table of contents

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

Shortcuts

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.

The articles NXIVM and Keith Raniere

How do the BLP guidelines apply in the case of these two articles?

The first article, NXIVM, is a company specializing in personal development seminars led by the referent of the second article, a BLP of Keith Raniere.

Request: That administrators take an interest in this serious but interesting matter, but please not to make any edits to the articles without first familiarizing yourself with the WP:RSs on the discussion page of the article Keith Raniere. At least take a quick overview first.

The problem is, as you will see, the sources call the group a "cult", a "cult-like organization", or otherwise describe him and it negatively.

Therefore, we allow him and it to use their own websites to cite much of the articles to "balance", and we allow them to mis-represent other references, because of BLP and NPOV guidelines: it wouldn't be fair to him and it, the logic goes, to simply faithfully report the main points and information in the articles; they say; because of BLP guidelines, we have to write a NPOV article despite the sources; even though we don't have any WP:RSs other than their own websites and a fact or two cherry-picked here and there out of references; that says positive things about him and it.

Tough case! But very interesting....Chrisrus (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, if we do what I'm planning to do, which is to follow WP:FIRST and so on; if I faithfully report all the notable important facts that we've been able to find about him and it; it's going to be a pretty damning article. This is because the WP:RSs are pretty much a bunch of exposes, spelled with an accent. They are all investigative reports on a pretty creepy cult-like organization with lots of details, with titles like "Ex-NXIVM Insiders Tell All" and "Inner workings of creepy cult exposed" and so on. Don't take my word for it, look at the RSes yourself, they're pretty much all collected on Talk:Keith Raniere. Is there another analogous case somewhere? Will it be enough for WP:BLP if we just quote a bunch of stuff from thier websites? There are a few denials here and there in the sources, but for the most part it's just "refused to comment for this article", mostly. Has anyone ever seen anything like this before? Please advise. They're likely to sue Wikipedia or Jimbo or me or you or whoever they can, because that's what they usually do. It's very interesting and all, but it's may turn out not to be fun at all. Want to try and disuade me? This may be your last chance. Chrisrus (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I went ahead and created this: Keith_Raniere#Criticism_of_NXIVM. It's not much, but I think you can see where this is heading if I continue. Was I wrong? Is this a violation of WP:BLP guidelines? Chrisrus (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisrus (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're now at the top of the list! Still, no attention, but I haven't given up, so hopefully I can keep it here as long as it takes. How much of what is in those sources on KR's talk page is permissible to transfer to the article? Are you ok with all of the periodicals as within WP:RS? Chrisrus (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

| Click here!

You gotta step up

Get to the bottom of it

Dig deep and go behind the scenes

You gotta step up

Get to the bottom of it

Go deep, show 'em what it means

You gotta step up

Pull down and take a number

Hold firm, nip it in the bud

You gotta step up

Pull down and take a number

Be firm, figure out what's what

Step up!

Pierce Brosnan

In the biography of Pierce Brosnan in Wikipedia the following passage appears:

"Brosnan was brought up in a Roman Catholic[5][6][7] family and educated in a local school run by the Christian Brothers while serving as an altar boy.[7] Brosnan has expressed contempt for his education by the Christian Brothers. "I grew up being taught by the Christian Brothers, who were dreadful, dreadful human beings. Just the whole hypocrisy. And the cruelness of their ways toward children. They were very sexually repressed. Bitter. Cowards, really. I have nothing good to say about them and will have nothing good to say about them. It was ugly. Very ugly. Dreadful. I learnt nothing from the Christian Brothers except shame."[3

This a gross lible of the "Christian Brothers". The Irish Christian Brothers never had a school in Navan nor did they ever have Pierce Brosnan as a pupil in any of their schools.

Please have the passage removed immediately! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athgarvan (talk • contribs) 16:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you find that out? Where does "Navan" factor into this? Hipocrite (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Navan is the town where Brosnan grew up. However, he may easily have been schooled outside of Navan at a boarding school.The Interior (Talk) 21:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation above is from the referenced article in Cigar Afficianado magazine. It is a pretty strong statement, but the reference seems to support it. Tgeairn (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a similar reference here. It specifies Christian Brothers in Navan but is perhaps worded more guardedly. Thincat (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Athgarvan, please familiarize yourself with our policy against legal threats. Your use of the word "libel" can reasonably be construed as a legal threat. We are not saying anything negative about the Christian Brothers in Wikipedia's voice. Instead, we are reporting what Pierce Brosnan has said about his experiences in his youth. We now have two sources quoting Brosnan saying essentially the same thing. Both should be considered reliable sources for direct quotes by Brosnan. As I see it, your dispute is with Pierce Brosnan, not with Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for crying out loud. Mentioning that something may be illegal is not the same as making a legal threat. The people who try to stretch it to mean that are just looking for excuses to jump to blocking people instead of dealing maturely with possibly legitimate issues. If you would familiarize yourself with the policy it doesn't say that identifying potential problems in articles constitutes a legal threat. Hell, if that were the case then all of our pages for reporting potential copyright problems would all be legal threats. In this case it's not merely that someone else said something and we are just factually mentioning it, but in repeating it we need to be clear in our motivations. Brosnan did or did not say something is a a side issue. Even if it's true that it was said, it doesn't logically follow that we should report it at all or give a bunch of space to it. It's a very strong statement, and it seems weird to be doing such a long direct quote on a topic like that when the reason the person is famous is for being an actor, not for being an altar boy. So the question should become why would it be presented the way it is -- if indeed it should be mentioned at all? DreamGuy (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cullen's interpretation of policy. "For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended. To avoid this frequent misunderstanding, use less charged wording (such as “That statement about me is not true and I hope it will be corrected for the following reasons...”) to avoid the perception that you are threatening legal action for defamation."

Also, the copyright issue you mention is specifically discounted in the policy: "A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat"."--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin O'Neal

I understand that the "Legal Troubles" section of this article is sourced to the teeth, but am I alone in thinking it should perhaps be trimmed back? As it stands there are two sentences describing the subject's career, and four paragraphs regarding his various run-ins with the law. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legal troubles of Griffin O'Neal - not a suggestion , more of an observation. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about this guy other than what I just read in the article (and I'm also no BLP expert, just happened to be browsing here), but if he's vastly better known for his legal troubles than for his acting career, shouldn't the article reflect that? (I mean, if people are more likely to be looking up "the guy from that boating accident" or "Ryan O'Neal's son who keeps getting arrested" than "the guy who appeared in Assault of the Killer Bimbos", is there any reason for the article to pretend otherwise?) Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your position - but he is far from a major criminal (probation - community service) and the article currently more represents a rap sheet of minor convictions than a life story of a notable actor. Griffin O'Neal's criminal record -

Off2riorob (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the section on his legal problems should be trimmed back (though not eliminated) per undue weight, especially since all these incidents save one took place 19 or more years ago. I don't trivialize his offenses but the article needs balance, espcially since the main reason he is famous is because his father is more famous. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article as written now gives too much detail about his legal troubles, especially since alone they would not make him notable enough for an article, and because his true reason for notability is his family connection not his own acting career. I suggest we remove the details about each incident, and incorporate it back into the personal life section. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 11:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a degree of support for a rewrite with a bit less weight and a merge into the personal life section - I had a look, not a two second job ... anyone like to be bold? Off2riorob (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I messed with it a bit. See what you think.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's certainly a significant improvement! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Jimmy Wales would give me $45.00, then we could buy the subject's official biography and improve this Wikipedia article even more.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mikis Theodorakis

Soosim (talk · contribs) insists on mentioning the same interview, in which Theodorakis is alleged to have made anti-semitic comments, twice in a row [1]. The sentence he keeps re-adding refers to the same interview made in early 2011. His argument that it is a "different source" is specious: Basically he just wants to say over and over again that Theodorakis is an anti-semite, Theodorakis is an anti-semite, as much as possible for effect. There are many sources that mention the incident, shall we include a separate sentence for each one? I have opened a thread on the discussion page, but the user refuses to participate. Allegations of anti-Semitism are serious. If they can be substantiated, they should be mentioned. But not gratuitously in this fashion. Athenean (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Repeating the same content multiple times, each time using a different source is redundant and, frankly, ridiculous. I will keep an eye on the article. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

while it is the same interview, it is a different quote from the interview. different information. important information. the source is irrelevant (same or different). the content is king. so, i think the re=added material is important enough to stand alone. (otherwise, i wouldn't add it back in). i am sure the paragraph can be re-written to include both so all will be happy. ok? Soosim (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the article this sentence already exists: In early 2011, Theodorakis made comments on Greek television that were reported as being antisemitic. This was according to the Jerusalem Post. You want to add: According to the Los Angeles Times, "in the course of a (2011) television interview" Theodorakis "openly conceded that he was an anti-Semite. The JP and LA Times report on the same interview and essentially the same topic, which is the reported antisemitism of Mikis Theodorakis. I fail to see why we have to repeat the same topic twice. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 07:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you see no difference between "openly conceded that he was an anti-Semite" and "comments...reported as being antisemitic."? then i will remove the second and leave the first, ok? is that a good consensus? Soosim (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. The second is more informative. Basically, you just want to say over and over again "Theodorakis is an anti-semite, Theodorakis is an anti-semite". Well, it's not going to happen. Athenean (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Openly conceded that he was an anti-Semite is not directly supported by either of these newspapers because they do not transcribe the exact words of Mikis Theodorakis. As such for a BLP it is better to keep a distance from these allegations and not report these facts in a headline-type editorialising way. Unless a better source becomes available which accurately transcribes Theodorakis' statements. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 07:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dr k and athenean - you are way off base, sorry. here is the exact quote from the LA Times: "We're in danger!" warned renowned composer Mikis Theodorakis, who in the course of a television interview openly conceded that he was an anti-Semite. "Zionism and it leaders are here, meeting in our country!"

it clearly says that he 'conceded that he was an anti-Semite." not sure why you seem to indicate that it doesn't. the LA Times is a very reliable source, with the reporter Anthee Carassava, reporting from athens. this wasn't someone asleep at the desk in some LA suburb reading into it. so, no need for anything better than that. dr k, please rv your edit of mine, or simply change it, as i have now suggested three times, to the LA Times quote. thank you. Soosim (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not "off base" at all. Your above comment clearly proves my assertion that you are primarily intent on labeling Theodorakis as an anti-semite, i.e. juxtaposing the words "Theodorakis" and "Anti-Semite", and nothing more. I don't see why we have to follow the LA Times. For example, the Jerusalem Post doesn't use the same characterization as the LA Times. So I don't see why we have to give prominence to one view over all others. But first I'd like to confirm that we are at least on the same page as far as using one sentence only for the 2011 interview, not another and another and another. Athenean (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not sure how you can say it is not off base when dr k (are you the same person?) said that the source doesn't say 'x', when the source indeed says 'x'. plain and simple. and regarding using one sentence: i said that IF we only use one sentence, it should be from the LA times. is that ok with you? Soosim (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not the same person. We ARE going to use only one sentence, and it's going to be the second one, because it is more informative. Athenean (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Athenean. Please find a better reference if you want to put words into Theodorakis' mouth. The reference I ask you to find is the exact words of Theodorakis calling himself "anti-semite". Until such time that you do find the source I asked you there will be no change from the current one. And please drop the insults. It is incivil and rather naive asking other editors if they are the same person and violates WP:AGF. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the LA times says he said it, by a reporter of greek origin (or so it seems - important since she speaks greek), who was reporting from athens, heard it first hand, etc. - so, without any further objections, i will go to the consensus we have reached of only listing the LA Times quote and not the other one. (or both, but i doubt that this would make you happy). thanks. Soosim (talk) 07:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus? What "consensus"? Care to explain? Athenean (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CONSENSUS before you use the concept in a discussion. You have no consensus. Two editors so far disagree with you. This is exactly the opposite of a consensus. This is called disagreement. You also copied this discussion at the Theodorakis article talkpage. This is called forum shopping. Please see also WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 12:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inmate numbers

An editor removed an inmate's number from an article. Another editor restored it, and I reverted (now twice). The restoring editor says it's needed because it's like a social security number and can be used to look up an inmate. I've seen inmate numbers in other articles and have always removed them. Although, legally, inmates lose a many rights that free citizens have, I don't see why Wikipedia should put in that kind of identifying information about inmates. Is there any guidance on this issue?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I said: it's like {{issn}}, that is, the International Standard Serial Number used to identify periodicals, a form of authority control. --Lambiam 12:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That makes even less sense. The numbering isn't even the same from one state to another, let alone standardized internationally. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No precedent that I'm aware of, but I don't know what encyclopedic need there is to include this info. causa sui (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that such information as an inmate number should generally be considered superfluous information unless there is reasonable cause to feel that confusion could result from omitting that piece of information. Bus stop (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did perform one of the reverts to restore this information. I admit my actions were spawned at seeing the inmate number compared to a SSN. I think it is a better argument to suggest the information is superfluous and a level of depth the interested reader should expect to research. While I admit this is a better argument, I do not concede that in general, an inmates prison number should never be incorporated as article prose. In fact I can imagine several reasons why such information is relevant. My76Strat (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison was by another editor, and I continued it. It's not completely specious, either. The laws regarding social security numbers are complex and vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but I don't see a big difference between an SSN and an inmate number. Both are identifying information and they are neither public or private exactly. Mostly, people get upset about SSNs because of pfishing issues. In any event, I'm curious what your "several reasons" are.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably true that inmate numbers don't have associated "pfishing issues" as social security numbers do. But I think there is an implied insult in presenting identification of a person as their inmate number, because it very effectively strips away the individualizing qualities that a personal name conveys. Indeed in many accounts of prisoners the inmate number is included with surrounding language expressing satisfaction in what may be a fall from a higher station in life. But Wikipedia is supposed to not partake of some of the seedier sides of tabloid journalism and I think this is an instance where WP:BLP would generally be applicable. Bus stop (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bus stop is spot on here. The number is only significant in two ways (a) as a convenience for prison bureaucratic processes, and (b) as a means to dehumanise and stigmatise individuals. Neither of these are part of Wikipedia's remit, and unless there are compelling reasons in particular cases to do so, I can see no reason to include such information. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment of the two basic reasons. I disagree that one reason should be dismissed as a "bureaucratic process". This man transformed himself, through his crime and became, even more so, a number.

It is plausible someone could be interested in corresponding with an inmate. This is not possible under a given name. Funds, stamps, an ability to purchase a coke, are all dependent on if someone cares, and then if they have the correct number. There are searches that a person might reasonably desire to accomplish, and having the number will significantly refine the results to useable information. It's not unreasonable that a person might believe they could find this information in an encyclopedic resource like Wikipedia.

It begins to seem unreasonable when instead we create reasons to segregate reasonable facts, by imagining some superseding moral obligation. Following this path will next assail a reliable source for perhaps themselves mentioning this fact. I am not advocating we banish the mans name, but my imagination allows if as fair if at one venture we acknowledge "Steven J. Hayes, known as inmate 97425, remanded to the Connecticut Department of Corrections ..." Other than that, "Fuck him" which is a personal opinion, but one I do hold. My76Strat (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: You might think that they are reduced to numbers because of their crimes, but not everyone in the world agrees with that assessment. Some of us find the dehumanization distasteful at minimum; grotesque when it is carried out by a person against themselves (as in this case), but much moreso when it is carried out against helpless victims (like prisoners) by people who hold themselves to be innocent. I'm sorry if that sounds polemical, but the point is that Wikipedia cannot be a platform for extending dehumanization. The executioners will pay them their due, and the rest of us should pay whatever respect we still can. To the second point, I don't want that Wikipedia would become a platform for distributing information about how someone could contact these prisoners, especially since we have no indication that they want to be contacted by anyone. Anyone who has good cause to contact them (i.e. friends and family) doubtlessly know how by now. That the numbers could be used by members of the general public to interfere with their private lives, if what you say is true, is another excellent argument against including it. causa sui (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My76, I know you have already removed the number from the article because you believe a consensus has been reached to do so. So, I only write to correct two points you and others have made. First, you can look up an inmate in Connecticut without an inmate number. This is also true at least in some other prison databases that are online. Obviously, I'm not going to check all of them. Second, although much is done in prison to dehumanize prisoners, I don't think assigning them a number is one of those things. The system justs wants a unique identifier. In California, which I'm more familiar with, a prisoner is assigned a number that remains with him throughout his incarceration for the offense(s) he was convicted of. After he's released, if he commits another crime and is sent to prison, he is assigned another number. It's really just a bureaucractic process, not a demeaning one.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The inmate numbers are public record. This is a non-issue. What is someone going to do, use his inmate number to get an AMEX card? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see a problem with having the inmate number in the article as Niteshift36 states that number cant be misused by anyone.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I removed the content as an abundant caution to the spirit of the emerging consensus, If discussion concludes consent for inclusion, as appropriate, that would be fine; someone can add it back. I did not mean to imply searching inmate information was impossible without the number, only that having it can refine the results more specifically. My only contention is that including it should not automatically be construed as negative any more so than such a negative story would otherwise reasonably be anticipated to contain. But it's an opinion, an the effect one way or another is minimal to my regards. My76Strat (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection I think the inclusion of inmate numbers in articles could be acceptable, but I think such inclusion would have to be done "tastefully". I think My76Strat makes a very persuasive argument for this. But I take exception to the statement "Other than that, 'Fuck him' which is a personal opinion, but one I do hold".[2] Mr. Hayes is a living individual and on BLP grounds we should not speak disparagingly of him, even on Talk pages. Bus stop (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a general issue, criminal proceedings are public knowledge. It is not a BLP issue to say that someone has been convicted and sent to prison. More specifically, inmate numbers can be used in some systems to locate prisoners and determine their release dates. For example, the US Federal prison system has an "Inmate Locator" which can be searched by either name or inmate number.[3] The prison a person is or was held in and their incarceration dates are probably of legitimate biographical interest. Will Beback talk 17:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(←) A few points: (1) They've both confessed in open court and been found guilty by a jury, so the BLP issues about describing them as criminals are obviated. (2) They will never be released, but this discussion may be significant for how we treat other notable criminals. Most important: (3) I'm surprised that you think it's a good thing for us to enable tho public to (a) know where prisoners are located AND (b) know when they will be released. I understand that this information is available in other public sources, but it does not follow that we ought to be a platform for it's distribution. We don't know that prisoners (these or others) want to be contacted by whatever random people are reading their Wikipedia article, and I think we can safely assume that nobody would want such a person showing up at the gate when they are released. In the event that either of these men (by divine intervention, no doubt) did manage to be released from prison within the span of their remaining natural lives, vigilante retribution would be a serious risk, and it might be a risk in the case of other high-profile prisoners. That is a serious BLP concern if anything is at all, and I don't know what critical encyclopedic need outweighs the issues of privacy and personal safety. causa sui (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is biographical information. If they were dead there'd be no concern about saying they were incarcerated in a particular prison between certain dates. We routinely include the residences of people, at least in general terms. We often say what they are planning to do. By saying that someone is on the city council, we are indirectly telling readers that the subject will appear at the next council meeting. By saying that someone is starring in a play, we are telling readers where the subjects will be on a particular date and time. Further, the release date is not, to the best of my understanding, the same as the date they will actually walk out the door due to administrative vagaries. Also, prisoners are not necessarily released directly, but are sometimes transported somewhere else for release because prisons are often in remote locations.

I think that rather than looking at this as a BLP issue, it's probably easier to look at it from the NOR perspective. While secondary sources may say that a convict is incarcerated at San Quentin and may also say that he or she is expected to be there for 15 years, they would rarely publish the inmate number itself. Instead, that information generally comes from primary sources. As a rule, we should not publish material which has only appeared in primary sources unless already referred to by secondary sources. On that basis, I'd see a good reason for not including the inmate numbers unless other sources have found them worthy of note. Will Beback talk 18:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with BeBack on the point of primary source vs secondary sources. If the number is only published in primary sources, then I am inclined to want to leave the number out of wiki. --BwB (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lying to the 9/11 Commission

Can someone please look at this and let me know if they think that this is a WP:BLP violation?[4] Discussion is here.[5] Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it is a BLP violation. The person making the accusations was part of the commission. The interpretation of the book comes from a secondary source (I actually think that's better than citing the book only, as one editor suggests). I disagree with one editor who says that it requires a "court order" to put in an accusation of someone lying. We're not, except maybe very obliquely, talking about crimes here.

That said, I think the material is poorly worded and doesn't conform to the source. We need to be careful about distinguishing between what the writer of the article is saying as opinion and what the writer is saying about what Farmer said. Also, we shouldn't reach at all.

I'm not addressing other issues like whether the material is relevant to the article or whether it's undue or any other possible objection, just the BLP violation issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jan T. Gross

An issue has come up on the Jedwabne pogrom article. Editors have been inserting the phrase

Jan T. Gross himself praised the conduct of the IPN investigation.^[1]

based, apparently, on a statement he may have made in the cited source or another one that "To było bardzo przyzwoicie zrobione śledztwo", which means, more or less, "That was a very decently conducted investigation". Gross brought the Jedwabne pogrom to public attention, accusing Poles of killing hundreds of Jews in it during WW II. Polish nationalists have since directed their fury at Gross, and been doing their best to undermine his findings and/or credentials. The Polish IPN did a subsequent investigation, which in some ways corroborated Gross' views, and in some ways disagreed with them. The problem with the insertion, in my view, is that it's not at all clear what exactly Gross "praised", and what it means. Because of the vagueness, and in general, strong hostility to Gross, I've been insisting it stay out of the article until BLP issues are resolved one way or another. Unfortunately, despite the clear wording of WP:BLPREMOVE, other editors have been re-adding it. I'm fine with whatever the outcome of this discussion is, but BLP is pretty clear that the material should stay out until it's settled. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this can be a BLP issue. It is not about Gross, it is by him, it is neutral, and it is on subject (a quote on the investigation that is a major part of the article). It is in no way, shape or form critical of his person (the investigation was done by a reliable and respected body, so it is not like he is supporting some controversial or fringe party). As far as I know, the quote has not been a subject to any controversy (unlike some of his books, but this is not an issue here). One could just as well, or perhaps even with more justification, suggest we should remove all the references to Gross and his work from this article... not that I would support that, of course. Still, if we cannot quote him, how come we can cite him? This is rather ridiculous. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Piotrus, "if we cannot quote him, how come we can cite him?" --BweeB (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't quoted though, and it's not clear to what he's referring. Is his view properly represented or not? What exactly did Gross say about the IPN investigation, and in what context? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little difficult to have a discussion in two places, but to see the Gross quote in context, see Talk:Jedwabne pogrom#Break. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) This isn't a BLP issue at all. We have one source being used in the article, Gross, and then we have another source being used in the article, IPN. Then we have a statement - reliably sourced - in which the first sources says something positive about the second source. Where's the BLP issue? The statement:

is not controversial
is reliably sourced
is not biographical in nature

BLP is nowhere near close to being relevant here.

Even in cases where two sources disagree, as long as they're both reliable and notable, NPOV requires us to present both sides of an issue. Here we have sources which agree, for the most part! Or at least one source praises the other. Even in cases where two sources disagree, virtually ALL Wikipedia articles rely on works by living authors. To suggest this means, by BLP, that we cannot include any statements in which these living authors refer to each other's work is just silly and shows a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of what BLP is. Coming from a long time editor and administrator this is quite disturbing.

The other part of Jayjg's statement above is likewise inappropriate. Specifically:

and in general, strong hostility to Gross, - none of the editors involved in the present discussion have ever shown any "strong hostility" or even "mild hostility" or anything close to that in regard to Gross here. This is just Poisoning the well.

I've been insisting it stay out of the article until BLP issues are resolved one way or another. - it's pretty obvious to anyone who's paid attention to BLP issues and worked to adequately enforce BLP that this isn't a BLP issue at all. BLP is a very important and serious policy. Misusing it in a way like is being done here dilutes it and cheapens it. Those of us who take BLP very seriously have legitimate cause for concern where this kind of thing happens.

Unfortunatly, despite the clear wording of WP:BLPREMOVE, other editors have been re-adding it. - unfortunately BLPREMOVE is not relevant here, which again is pretty obvious to anyone who's familiar with BLP policy. Invoking BLPREMOVE as a stand in for IDON'TLIKEIT is inappropriate.

Volunteer Marek 18:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jayjg that the sentence is used in a non-neutral way to make it seem that Gross agrees specifically with the conclusion of the IPN presented in the previous sentence (there being no more living perpetrators). This would amount to putting words in Gross's mouth, and as such would indeed be a violation of BLP. I also agree with him that Gross's opinion of the investigation is not particularly relevant or notable. I agree that the sentence should be left out entirely. I believe WP:BLP trumps consensus here, and that WP:BLPREMOVE applies. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg points out that "Polish nationalists have since directed their fury at Gross, and been doing their best to undermine his findings and/or credentials" and refers to the "in general, strong hostility to Gross." As far as I can see the biggest concern here is not with a BLP violation but has now come out as one with Polish nationalism, and possibly the assumption that Polish nationalism has motivated the addition of this content. If this assumption has merit, then that's more of a case for DIGWUREN than BLP. For what it's worth, in my view, I can't see how this content is in any way anti-Gross. Quite the contrary, it shows Gross as a vital part of the academic consensus and it wouldn't do a Polish nationalist any service in some malicious conspiracy to advance the Polish cause.

If an editor wanted to show the Jedwabne inquiry as one in which Polish nationalists raised their ugly heads, then there is plenty of room for that in the article. But repeated removal of the content [6], [7], [8], [9] while blaming the problem on "other" editors is hardly the best solution.

Finally, it would be an easily-made mistake to assume that any qualifying remarks about Gross are derived from Polish nationalism. For one, the Chief Rabbi of Poland says: "Gross writes in a way to provoke, not to educate, and Poles don't react well to it. Because of the style, too many people reject what he has to say." [10]

I propose, as a solution, to simply use a direct quote rather than a paraphrase of Gross. But someone will need to translate it. It really is relevant because it is thanks to Gross that the inquiry started, so his comment at the end of it completes a full circle.

Thanks -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow I did miss the part where Jayjg says Polish nationalists have since directed their fury at Gross, and been doing their best to undermine his findings and/or credentials. which borders on a personal attack, by insinuation. The irony here is of course that the statement is included to BOLSTER Gross's "findings and/or credentials". Volunteer Marek 18:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you both please stop going on about your erroneous inferences, and stick instead to the issue at hand - that Gross has not been quoted here, and has been misrepresented? Save the rest for some appropriate forum please, whatever that might be. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want people drawing inferences then don't make statements which insinuate them. As to the issue at hand, Gross has NOT been misrepresented. The text is reliably sourced. You're making stuff up (in addition to mis-using BLP policy in a way which chips away at its credibility). Volunteer Marek 19:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Others have also pointed out why this is a BLP issue, in this very thread. Rather than attacking other editors, please focus on ensuring that in the future the material used in the article complies with WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually others have agreed that this isn't a BLP issue at all, in this very thread. Rather than misrepresenting what people have said, please actually bother reading WP:BLP and its purpose, rather than using it as a bully stick to enforce your POV on an article. I am not attacking any editors - again, you're making stuff up - though I am being critical of one editor, you. Because it seems you do not understand, despite being an administrator, what BLP is. The material used in the article fully complies with WP:BLP. Please focus on *real* BLP issues rather than cynically and disruptively abusing BLP policy to win a content dispute because by doing so you're ensuring that in the future the job of people who really DO TAKE BLP seriously is going to be so much harder. Volunteer Marek 20:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, some people have said it's a BLP problem, and some have said it is not. We're all aware that you claim it's not a BLP problem; you're entitled to your opinion. But please stop trying to beat us over the head with your personal opinion again and again, as if by dint of constant repetition it will somehow make it true. Instead, please focus on the specific issues raised, and do your best to actually respond to them, rather than attacking any editors, making repeated assertions that you're right, or making dire warnings about the collapse of BLP if we don't agree with you on this specific issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Above I said that this was a disruptive abuse of BLP policy. Let me articulate how. By Jayjg's logic, I could go to pretty much any Wikipedia article which uses sources written by living authors, claim that these authors are being misrepresented (without bothering to explain how), and remove whatever text I want to while claiming BLP violations (because these were "living authors"). This would in effect be a license to remove any text IDON'TLIKE from Wikipedia which relies on presently living authors. Obviously this isn't the purpose of BLP policy. The purpose of BLP policy is to protect living people, NOT to provide Jayjg with a pretext to remove any text he fancies. I'm sorry if there was some confusion over that. Volunteer Marek 21:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make any arguments in my name, or "by Jayjg's logic" - this page has no need for straw man arguments or slippery slope logical fallacies. This section is about the statement attributed to Gross, and only that; please stop wasting our time with large amounts of off-topic logical fallacies. And finally, and for what I hope is the last time, comment on content, not on the contributor. That's basic policy (like WP:BLP), so please start respecting it. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about you stop wasting our time with your nonsensical invocation of BLP policy where it doesn't apply? And stop acting in a condescending manner, insinuate things about editors, try to bully them by slapping their talk pages with irrelevant templates, insult them by referring to their statements along the lines such as above ("wasting our time with ... off-topic logical fallacies") or making passive aggressive (and false) statements such as please focus on ensuring that in the future the material used in the article complies with WP:BLP or have you read BLPREMOVE yet? (both versions of "have you stopped beating your wife", bad faithed kinds of statements)

Behavior like that is far more uncivil, rude and obnoxious then somebody (me) asking you to cease this kind of behavior. Need I remind you that you are an administrator and are supposed to observe a certain level of decorum and respect in your interactions with others?

Anyway. You have failed to articulate in any way shape or form why this is a BLP issue, just asserted it. Which is why I explained, again, why this is not a BLP issue.

Let's try one more time, on topic:

We have source A used in the article. We have source B used in the article. We have a reliably sourced statement from source A about source B, which involves a positive statement. Where in the world is there a BLP issue here?

And yes, according to YOUR logic, any statement which is sourced to a living writer can be removed under the pretext that it is a BLP violation. It isn't. Volunteer Marek 02:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're all always learning and I'd like an objective, neutral investigation from Wikipedia into whether its policy WP:BLPREMOVE was applied correctly by the administrator involved in editing this content. I hereby request an outside administrator point me to where I can apply for that. If the policy was applied correctly, then there may be a case for raising greater awareness of it, given that it appears to have surprised several established editors and even a second administrator. Additionally, it may set a policy precedent that Wikipedia might need to take a closer look at. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, we appear to have established on Talk page discussion at Jedwabne Pogrom that Gross said, in Polish, "This was a very properly conducted investigation", which is what the above content "Jan T. Gross himself praised the conduct of the IPN investigation" paraphrases. Jayjg as an involved, editing administrator threatened to block fellow editors from the article who undid his removal of phrase "This was a very properly conducted investigation", per WP:BLPREMOVE, on the grounds that it might be mischaracterizing Gross's comment. So every editor there is currently working under the threat of an immediate block from a fellow editor if they restore the content, until this BLP issue is resolved. Regardless of whether WP:BLPREMOVE was applied correctly in principle, we now practically need a 'resolved' tag on this BLP noticeboard section - with an assertion whether this is or is not a BLP issue - in order for editing to return to normal at Jedwabne Pogrom. If the positioning of the content in the article needs to be discussed, then it can be discussed on the talk page as per normal. I trust that positioning of a quote or accurate paraphrase is not a BLP issue. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

diane feinstein

Resolved

– Unsourced material removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other internet sources report that her father died in 1975. The article states his death in 2003. Please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.222.96.2 (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence was added earlier this year by an IP without explanation or source. I've removed it from the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ani-Matilda Serebrakian

"Ani-Matilda Serebrakian (born February 7, 1989) was an alpine skier from Armenia. She competed for Armenia at the 2010 Winter Olympics.[1] She did not finish either of the events she competed in.[2]"

It states that she did not finish either of her races at 2010 Olympics. This is false, she did finish the second one, only was not placed. A "DNF" in ski racing means you Did Not Finish (at all-- did not receive a time) -- she DID finish her second race, but again was not qualified/place to do second run. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.123.165 (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it. I hope my characterization is accurate. I said she was disqualified (DSQ) in one event and did not complete the other. I'm not sure about the "disqualified" description. I'm also struggling to understand why she is notable, although per WP:ATH, just participating at the Olympics is enough.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Richard Lynch

I attempted to make the page more neutral and less of a puff piece. An anonymous editor keeps undoing my edits. No doubt, Lynch has been successful, but I am don't think we need to compare him to Bill Gates in the article lead. Another editor, Dormskirk, seems to agree with me, but I wonder if others have anything to say. ComputScientist (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some clean-up edits. Hope this helps. --BweeB (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The anonymous editor is still at it, undoing some of your edits and copying his version of the lead a bit further down the page. It's a bit exhausting. ComputScientist (talk) 08:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen D. Leonard

Resolved

– October 17, 2011 User:The Bushranger deleted "Stephen D. Leonard" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen D. Leonard - The result was speedy delete. Speedy WP:G3'd. Blatant hoax is blatant.)

Article has sources which don't meet requirements, nor establish notability by themselves--they appear to be primary. Aside from the article's unsupported claims, there's nothing to confirm claims of notability--it's not clear that the sources even confirm his existence. Creator and sole author continues to remove maintenance templates, insisting that all issues have been resolved. I can't find anything on Google about this person.... 99.137.209.90 (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references in the article mention this person, and I have been unable to find any trace of him or the books that the article claims he's written. It's nominated now at Articles for Deletion, and may well be eligible for a speedy. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a hoax, it isn't blatant, so I guess the AfD process needs to play out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Lamo

I am concerned that the intro to this article is being used to level an attack on the person in question. I hope that a third party can help me and my colleague determine what best honors BLP policy. We have several disagreements: (1) I believe that the assertion of 'torture' needs to be attributed, and because the assertion is controversial it does not belong to the intro; (2) the phrase regarding 'US government claims' is gratuitous and strays from the facts relevant to the introduction; (3) the choice of the verb 'caused' is not cited or neutral, because the cause is located elsewhere in many accounts of the incident. [11] DBaba (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has serious problems and fails to present a balanced overview of the person's life and notability. Stating in the lead that he "caused" the Wikileaks scandal and implying he is responsible for a prisoner being tortured is inflammatory and unsupported by reliable sources. That's just the beginning and there are many more digs and shots taken throughout the article. It needs a complete rewrite to the neutral point of view. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are TWO people we need to be concerned with here, not just one. Statements that Bradley Manning committed a crime, that documents he may or may not have released are "sensitive" (a claim which has not been established in a court of law), and the subtext that Adrian Lamo was justified in his actions through the use of tilted language are a far more serious violation of Bradley Manning's BLP protection. Lamo stands to lose his reputation; Manning stands to lose his life. It is therefore prudent that if we cannot find perfectly neutral ways of expressing the facts as disseminated by the government and their corporate media, then we must err on the side of Bradley Manning. -- SmashTheState (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course correct, SmashTheState, that the article also presents BLP issues with regards to Bradley Manning. Thank you for pointing that out. Any rewrite ought to take that into account as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Omer

In short, every edit that doesn't praise Omer and his journalism has now been deleted. As a reporter on Israeli-Palestinian affairs, Omer must be considered a public figure. Among the controversies surrounding his journalism, has been his repeated claims that his deceased brother Hussam was a civilian with no connection to any political or violent organization. This has been debunked by several news paper reports and one human rights organization on the incident, as well as the armed wing of Hamas themselves (see the page's Edit history for ). A non-user ("Evidence Only") has now deleted everything that doesn't directly applaud Omer, while adding unnecessarily long citations from award committees and Noam Chomsky, all in erroneous punctuation and linking style. It cannot be undone, due to "conflicting intermediate edits". Thomasjohansena (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I put some of it back but then I had a better look at it and there did seem to be some uncited and unreliably cited content that I was not prepared to take responsibility for so I took it out again. Off2riorob (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Schier

Self-Promoting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.5.87 (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the amazon sales links and two unaccessible externals - I almost sent it to AFD... professor with a couple of not notable books... article has been here for a few years . Off2riorob (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Kemp

Link at bottom to Martin Kemp offical website - takes you to a porn site with no relation to Martin Kemp. I think for deceny this should be edited but I am unable to do so. It also has taken me 20 mins to find where to report this matter to - maybe a report button would be good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.252.233 (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article is Martin Kemp (entertainer) - links removed, the other official link in the infobox is bogus as well. MilborneOne (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regulars to this page, please note I've taken the IP's final sentence seriously and begun a discussion here. I'd welcome your input there. To the IP, if you're still watching this page, thank you. --Dweller (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Machado

Machado's one claim to fame was his role as catcher when Cubs pitcher Kerry Woods struck out a record-tying 20 batters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.149.171 (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your point is. Machado is notable for being a major league baseball catcher.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Sheen#Alcohol problems

Resolved

– Vandalism already removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Martin Sheen#Alcohol problems

In the Martin Sheen bio, under the headline of "Alcohol problems" there's a derogatory comment about his sexual preferences, which seems to have no factual basis, or relevance to the subject for that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.142.188.223 (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was pure vandalism and was reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meera (Irtiza Rubab)

Meera (Irtiza Rubab) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've only had a chance to make a cursory look at the article and talk page, but it looks like the article needs partial protection from regular blp problems from ips, as well as a complete rewrite per WP:BLP. Does anyone have time for a closer look? --Ronz (talk) 05:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Charlotte of Wessex

This person does not exist. I know that the person who created the article has already been removed from Wikipedia but his/her article is still on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.153.184 (talk) 07:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied and salted --Dweller (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of the IP editor 67.etc and any other new editors, let me decode Dweller's use of Wikipedia jargon: Thanks to your report, this hoax article has been immediately deleted, and measures have been taken to prevent it from being created again. Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for bringing this hoax to our attention. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an article under Charlotte, Princess of Wessex. I've nominated it for speedy deletion. --NellieBly (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should request a checkuser look at the accounts creating these hoaxes and see if there are any sleeper accounts. Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Goldby

Items have been added to this biography which are untrue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.59.123 (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and you seem to have removed them, in this edit, after I'd already toned them down, in this edit. Does the source cited, The Stage for 2011, not mention any cast conflicts or similar problems at all? Or are you contending that it's fictitious that Goldby worked in England, directing plays by Lars Noren, in the 1990s? Or what, in fact, are you contending?

What do you think of my suggestion at Talk:Derek Goldby?

Do you have any reliable independent sources that you can point us to, that discuss what Goldby was doing during the 1990s?

Do you believe there are untrue statements in other parts of the article, or only that one paragraph? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regards my biography this year I directed Autumn and Winter in London I have done no other productions. There seem to have been some malicious edits. If this continues, is it possible to withdraw my Wikipedia page? 86.179.59.123 (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, malicious edits (and malicious editors) can be dealt with. I'm particularly concerned by this edit, made on 7th May 2011, which is flatly contradicted by this piece in the Guardian, published two days later. On the talk page for the article, however, the editor responsible for that edit correctly points out that many of the earlier versions of the article were unreasonably promotional, and not neutral.

The article in its current state also relies heavily on sources such as "personal observation" or "conversation with Derek Goldby" - that's not acceptable as a source for a Wikipedia article.

In general, if a person is only borderline notable by Wikipedia's standards, editors will likely defer to the person's wishes regarding deletion of the article about them. However - although I don't know much about theatre - I suspect you don't fit into that category (that is, it's likely that your notability is not in question.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References and data in the article have repeatedly been removed by unregistered user [[12]], who has admitted he is the subject of the article himself and talks above of 'malicious edits'. Yet this user has shown in the past to use the article for (self)-promotional purposes, given his non-neutral and highly promotional (and since reverted) additions to the article, and seems intent on removing non-glorifying information. This constitutes unwanted editing, and goes against Wikipedia:BLP, particularly Wikipedia:NPOV. To avoid an edit war and repeatedly undoing his vandalizations, I shall leave the article, but suggest semi-protection. Any thoughts?Neil pye (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J-P E. Mattila

The biography page of a living person, Mr. J-P E. Mattila has been under a continuous attack by the user "Tutkinnanjohtaja". This user is apparently representing and / or working for the Finnish government and has opted to use Wikipedia for libelous campaigning against this living person. References to tabloid level articles and other defamation has been undone and removed repeatedly. The current version provides a neutral viewpoint, but I feel this biography should get some attention and protection against future similar attacks.Barrister568 (talk) 07:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J-P E. Mattila (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Muhammad Ilyas Qadri

Active COI and sock-puppetry in this article (SPI raised, see this edit [13]). Nasir (talk · contribs) works for Dawat-e-Islami whose website is being used to edit the article. Assuming the latest IP is the same editor, see [14] although I know this is another issue (sorry, dashing out for a long walk with my dog). Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one looks like a candidate for AfD to me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preity Zinta

Resolved

– vandalism removed

Refer to the second sentence of the first para. "She has appeared in Hindi porn films of Bollywood, as well as Telugu, Punjabi and English language films."

As far as my knowledge, she is a main stream film actress and has not acted in porn movies. Please edit to remove 'porn'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.68.92 (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Betty McCollum

Resolved

– removed and Wikipedia:Revision deleted

Potentially libelous information regarding her religious affiliation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhelgeson (talk • contribs) 16:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the report - Removed - Off2riorob (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony :Tony" Clavier

Anthony Clavier was a bishop in the Anglican Church in America. He resigned and was later deposed for sexual misconduct. The sourced information about this has been removed several times from the page Tony Clavier. Stjudestucson (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also removed your additions. If that information is true, you will need to provide sources for it. Simply saying you transcribed it from an article isn't sufficient, as per Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. Dayewalker (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cherney

User:Moscowrussia has returned from a long period of inactivity (after first being blocked) to edit this article. He is interested only in this article and the Oleg Deripaska article. In the Cherney article, he is removing properly sourced information from the article and adding unsourced information. I have reverted him and warned him, but to no avail. I have now opened a topic on this issue on the article's Talk page, reverted him one more time, and invited him to discuss the content issues on the Talk page.

More eyes and opinions on the content issues would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Camelio

An SPA [15] is making extensive changes to this article, some good, but removing anything that could be even remotely negative even when well-referenced to BBC News. Unfortunately, the BBC article makes one small (irrelevant) error so the editor disregards it as entirely unreliable and is pushing multiple other editors around to push his positive POV. Please could someone weigh in. Ta. GDallimore (Talk) 23:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see there is an extended discussion on the Talk page about whether to include the patent lawsuit in the article. My initial reaction is NOT to include it, even though it has been reported by reliable media sources (except for the blog, which shouldn't be there). My reasoning is anyone can file a lawsuit challenging something, and until it's adjudicated, it's nothing more than accusation. However, I don't feel very strongly about it, mainly because I don't think the material is all that negative, compared to other kinds of legal accusations.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, it's not negative. The SPA is claiming removal on the basis that it's contentious, attempting to whitewash the article, and bullying a couple of other editors around. This bullying is my main reason for taking a stand and asking for more help. GDallimore (Talk) 23:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said it wasn't "all that negative" - I never said it wasn't negative. If someone is trying to invalidate Camelio's patent, that's certainly negative. I dunno about the bullying. He's persevering, and he's arguably acting against consensus (I count 3 editors in favor of inclusion and one (James) against). I also think James's comments about reliable sources are mostly wrong, but your rhetoric doesn't help.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Thodey

- CEO David Thodey - update request to Career section

Hi - I am new at this but have been referred here to request this change.

Apologies if I am going about it the wrong way!

I'd like to suggest a change to the Telstra CEO page of David Thodey

It mentions under his Career section;

David is the Chairman of Telstra subsidiary TelstraClear in New Zealand and Chairman of Basketball Australia.

But in fact, the Chairman is Diane Smith-Gander. See: http://www.basketball.net.au/index.php?id=438

DanMikhael (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I referred him to Talk:David Thodey to request the change. This is a simple change; I don't think this needs to be handled here, even with DanMikhael's admitted conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Done - diff - Off2riorob (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Gupta

Tony Clavier (part 2)

- Part one is a small report just above -

I will appreciate it if some other editors and administrators could take a look at the Tony Clavier article. An editor who claims some former personal association with Clavier at that time is repeatedly adding mostly poorly sourced comments about alleged moral failures by Clavier - especially vague "references" to photocopies of transcribed church documents the editor claims to have seen. Also, to my mind, much of this isn't being written in an acceptable NPOV manner and the claims are being given undue weight within the article. Any expert help with this will be appreciated. Thanks. Anglicanus (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left the user that is desirous of adding this content, User:Stjudestucson, a link to this discussion and a request not to replace it without further discussion/consensus support. Off2riorob (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like sources are on the editor's side. [16] [17] [18] [19][20] --GRuban (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, nice one GR. Looks like with, those sources, a well written addition/update, (perhaps nowhere near so extensive as the one being added previously) to the article could well be required. Off2riorob (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- In 1995 after allegations that Clavier attempted to have sexual relations with some female parishioners he resigned his position as archbishop of the Deerfield Beach Anglican congregation and in July 1995 the house of bishops subsequently declared that he had abandoned his vows and on deposed him.[1][2] - Off2riorob (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a cite that supports this bit - "in July 1995 the house of bishops subsequently declared that he had abandoned his vows and on deposed him." - anyone find something that supports the claim? Off2riorob (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hrr. I can find this, but it's pretty feeble: a casual mention in a court document not focusing on the issue. http://azappeals.com/Anglicanopening.pdf page 7. Unless we can find something better, we should leave it out. The document does, however, explain where our editor is coming from. "As a result, some members of the parish conceived a great deal of animosity toward Bp. Clavier. ..." --GRuban (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hes adding it back - this is fifteen years old its not like it was yesterday is it. I reverted him again and 3RR warned him. - I left him a link to this discussion and he has just reposted the undue policy violating content again - Off2riorob (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Staël von Holstein

Ok, this article is basically too long, and too biased. Right now it reads like a promotional bio for some commercial product. I think the Swedish version of the article is more appropriate in scope. Compared to many other (truly) notable Swedes, like Afzelius, Kamprad, etc, this is just disproportionately extensive. The Acknowledgement is just full of subjective praise. I will start pruning here shortly if nobody objects. Andailus (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable, looks a bit bloated in a promotional manner to me. Looking at it, it would benefit from some additional independent sourcing and perhaps condensing a bit. Off2riorob (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lewis

The subject has written at least one article which reeks both of bigotry and of blatant failure to get his facts right, and been called on it (though not enough, IMHO). Unfortunately, the editor most concerned with getting this into the article about him, User:Mattmcds, is using intemperate language and ad hominem attacks, is flailing out and SHOUTING AT even those editors (like me) who agree that this information belongs in the article somehow but aren't willing to violate our procedures in order to get The Truth out, and keeps inserting the same ill-formatted, poorly-footnoted language. Could somebody without a horse in this race look at the article, the talk page, and the posts to my talk page, and offer some suggestions? --Orange Mike | Talk 12:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few edits to improve it, a bit less vagueness and tweaked and tidied. - not overly happy with it - the Irish stuff is original research.... I am considering removing those aspects of it.... - I removed what is imo clearly original research - although true its not in the reference and it appears its only the person wanting to add the original research and not an independent reliable external that has called the subject out on this? - Without a rebuttal his opinions and comments in the content about Ireland are not independently notable and should also be removed.....I also note that the first claim that he was mischarachterised as a trader is only in what looks like a blog post and the defamation libel is as yet only an allegation and not really worthy of addition if and when is is actually proven - I am considering removing it all - f*** what a waste of my time - .... Off2riorob (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish stuff is definitely problematic, and the quote from Tavakoli concerns me as it appears to be a self-published blog article. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took it all back out. Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less sure about the libel suit, if it has been widely reported. While the Tavakoli comment troubles me, I don't see anything wrong with quoting from the Bloomberg article that she cites, in which he downplayed the risks of derivatives. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add whatever you feel to take responsibility for - libel suits are ten a penny and imo only should be reported here is found proven. I am not adding any of it. I also noticed after investigation that whoever is repeatedly adding this and is clearly angry about the Irish article also moved the energy of the libel allegation to seem as if it was racial focused when it isn't at all. - he added "sued for defamation of his portrayal of a chinese-american in his book" - as if chinese-american was an issue when it isn't at all. - Off2riorob (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In its original form, anti-Irish bigotry was "racial" in nature, since the Irish weren't seen as fully white; so some of the more fanatic members of the Irish Diaspora are inclined to see racism where others might see simply Anglophilia and ethnic snobbery. I do hope, though, that you can avoid whitewashing the fact that Lewis' article was in fact full of lies and prejudice, to an extent appalling to those who remember the era when Vanity Fair was a quality magazine. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add whatever you feel to take responsibility for, or rather what, as an experienced editor, what you feel is policy compliant. Off2riorob (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's OK to omit the libel suit pending disposition. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Lindauer

This article has been massively edited in recent times and would seem to require extensive attention. I know next to nothing about this person and her case, and about the sources used however. Not sure if this is the right place to flag this as I'm not exactly reporting a specific problem, more a suspected one. Mezigue (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey, people should really check out the lede of that article... --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a bad article - lots of SPA contributions to it over time - one sock account that was told to refer to WP:BASC - such crap articles with no hope of ever being correct according to wikipedia policy and guidelines should imo be deleted and salted. Why host and publish such low quality and policy violating content about living people? Off2riorob (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might well be right. I was kinda hoping that someone somewhere would know how to put it right. Mezigue (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there ever going to be a decent way to write a, encyclopedic style conspiracy theory about someones life, with rumor and claim and counterclaim? Personally I doubt it - one option would be to look through the history and find the best/a better version and revert back to it and then semi protect it. This version is not as bad as what we have now - imo - I would still remove all the soapboxing from the citation/reference section and look at removing a couple of the external links. - Off2riorob (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Barr

This page is about me. The information about remotely wiping my ipad and iphone is false. This never happened. It was claimed by Anonymous and has been repeated over and over in articles but is not factual.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronbarr (talk • contribs) 17:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the one event anonymouse stuff you appear only notable in relation to HBGary Federal so I redirected you there. Off2riorob (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curt Mega

I am on the verge of nominating the Curt Mega article for deletion because he's just not that notable, but in the meantime, I've been fighting an incipient edit war over whether the sourcing of this BLP is to reliable sources. One SPA and one IP editor are repeatedly putting back items either unsourced, or sourced to the actor's agents' site or to imdb, none of them a Reliable Source. Should I stop trying to keep the article properly sourced and just go with AfD? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He looks like he would survive an AFD to me. Such fanzine additions are pretty normal on such articles. If I was you I would just revert and if repeated request semi protection - usually the fanzine stuff is at least not defamatory or libelous. Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Des Cahill

Resolved

– removed false addition

I am a reired Primary Teacher from Corofin Co.Clare. I see in the Wikipedia article regarding RTE Sports Broadcaster Des Cahill that he is of Ethiopian Origin. This as far as I am concerned is Rubbish. Both Des Cahill's Partents were born in Parish of Corofin. They lived in the Parish for a short time after their Marriage. Patrick Cahill was a Primary Teacher and taught me at school. His wife Nora nee O'Reilly was a nurse. Patrick Died in Dublin in June 2002.His wife (Des's mother) still lives in Monkstown. Patrick's mother's maiden name was Tierney and born locally.I don't believe either the Tierney or Cahills had any Ethiopian connections. There are still many of the clan in Corofin. Nora O'Reilly's Mother was Bridget Barry. Bridget Barry's mother was Lynch from Kilfenora, a member of a Family steeped in the musical tradition of Kilfenora. Nora's father was John(Jack) O'Reilly. Jack's mother was Neylon from Moyhill same townland as O'Reillys and yours truly. Yours Sincerely - Thomas Burke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.216.112 (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the report - I removed it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shilpa Shetty

User:Shshshsh has reverted my removal of what I view as clear BLP violations from the biography of this Bollywood actress, The disputed material includes a tabloidery-style dating history and, worst of all, a lengthy and extravagantly detailed discussion of members of her family's alleged involvement with the "mafia". The latter is wretchedly handled; it is described as a "still pending" case, even though all the relevant sources date to 2003. I've had disputes with this editor over BLP and sourcing issues before, but this one approaches the outlandish. The "controversy" sections in this article are far too long in comparison to the treatment of subject's acting career, sometimes duplicative, and often include text that is unsupported by the cited sources, and needs even more extensive cleanup. Other opinions welcomed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't know who wrote that tabloid coatracking crap but whoever it was, they have never read a biography. Can I have the opportunity to re write it? That content about the mafia in relation to Shilpa can be easily written in a single sentence. Off2riorob (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with some of the removals on the personal life section, but I do not agree with the removal of the mafia links. It can be shortened, but only after a proper discussion and a consensus as to what exactly should be cut off. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how WP:BLP works. Contentious material is removed, and then added back only if and when there is a consensus to do so (which currently there clearly isn't). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Black Kite here, if the material is contentious and not perfectly sourced, it's got to go and go immediately. It doesn't matter if it's escaped notice by other editors, it as correctly removed from the article. Talk page discussion is the next step. Dayewalker (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main issue is that this series of incidents with Shilpa's parents have little to nothing to do with her. In fact, the inclusion of it in such a large section in the article seems to give credence to the statement that was in the section, that the accusations were being made to tarnish Shilpa's image through her parents. This has nothing to do with her. Sure, it should have a sentence or two, but other than that, since she's not involved, it shouldn't be in her biography article. Silverseren^C 02:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care if it's there or not. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that seems to resolve the issue about the mafia paragraphs as a minimum - I was wondering where to start condensing it to focus on Shilpa and really I agree its not actually about her, what would we write? - Off2riorob (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- In 2003 Shilpa's father was accused of a connection to the bombay mafia when a disputed creditor was approached by a claimed member of such demanding said unpaid bill related to a promotional appearance of Shilpa. As of 2011 a trial has yet to occur. Shilpa had nothing to do with this financial dispute and no connections to any mafia. Off2riorob (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several years ago I also raised a concern regarding this entire section, even as a mention alone. The user who added it, namely user:Ekantik did not agree to it. As you see, my point is not the inclusion of the paragraph, I think you know me enough time to know my stand on such stuff, Off2riorob. I do not think it's necessary, but I would never remove it out of the blue without prior discussion. I think it's ethically wrong.

The fact that she in a relationship with Akshay Kumar, however, is noteworthy. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ekantik - ah yes, now inactive, here he is adding the mafia links claim to the lede. I agree we all need to be as respectful as possible to each other and keep in mind that all have improvement of the project as a primary objective just we see the how to differently. (we all have off days) - discussion is always a good first step. At least we all seem to agree the huge section on mafia links is better out than in, so we can be happy with that improvement. The other stuff I haven't had a real look at, so I imagine HuWo.. will be along to make his case for any other removals, or by default if discussion isn't forthcoming that cited content could be replaced as with any disputed bold removal or addition. Regards. - Off2riorob (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gilgamesh in the Outback

The Gilgamesh in the Outback page was archived without resolution and now is locked again for a month. How is resolution supposed to occur?98.218.161.68 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Discussion on the Talk page and better behavior once the article is unlocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hamza Andreas Tzortzis

Some people requested an AfD on Hamza Andreas Tzortzis's Discussion-page. The reasons is, that is no proof whatsoever for this person's notability and that this guy is without any relevance in public life or science. Furthermore, the article relies heavily on his personal websites (like [21]) , thus violating the WP:SELFPUB-rules. Also, it has only one link to another wikipedia-article, what made me place the WP:O-tag above it. On the other hand his name gives a lot of hits on internet (though mainly though his own websites and some films on youtube) and he debated several notable people, like Rick Lewis and Simon Blackburn.

My question is:is it justified to start an AfD-procedure?Jeff5102 (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least there is an OTRS verification for the copyright release of the SPSource of the talkpage.Not much in my search results that is independent, but there is stuff in the search results like http://richarddawkins.net/videos/549391-debate-islam-or-atheism-with-hamza-andreas-tzortzis-the-president-of-american-atheists - he's written a book or two, its a judgment call - is he over the WP:GNG ? I doubt if he would survive an WP:AFD - 09:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Prince Fielder was born in Toronto, Ontario, Canada not Ontario, California

In an audio format interview Cecil Fielder clearly states that his son Prince Fielder was born in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. ref> http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/2011/10/20/cecil_prince/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadcliffeA (talk • contribs) 13:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the other sources list it differently.[22][23][24] We'd need more than one radio interview to over-rule all the other sources. Actually please relisten to the interview. He does say he was born in toronto, but then corrects himself and says he was 1 year old when he moved to Toronto and grew up there.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone else wants to check my interpretation the comment is in the final 60-90 seconds of the interview linked on the page RadcliffeA cites.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if he's correcting himself. It seems like too much of a coincidence that the sources have listed "Ontario, CA". It's really just the hyperlink (in the case of Baseball Reference, which may be the source for the ESPN and MLB info) that suggests it's California, and not Canada we are talking about. I'm not comfortable changing our article based on the interview (CL's right that Cecil isn't totally clear), but I think maybe an email to Baseball Reference should be written to ask for clarification. The Interior (Talk) 14:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you note, Cecil Fielder Began playing in Toronto in 1985 that would seem to corespond to his later statement that Prince was 1 year old in Toronro.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's inconclusive. It's really more an issue of where Mrs. Fielder was in 1984! The Interior (Talk) 14:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Motte

These two paragraphs need to be taken out of the bio as they are NOT relevant and defamatory to Albert Pujols.

On October 20, 2011 Jason Motte blew a save during Game 2 of the 2011 World Series. Motte gave up a single to Ian Kinsler. Kinsler then stole second base like the hero that he is shortly before Elvis Andrus hit a single to shallow right-center field, advancing Kinsler to 3rd base. On the cutoff throw Albert Pujols was charged with an error after he failed to make a basic cutoff catch. On the next 2 pitches of the game, Josh Hamilton and Michael Young hit consecutive sacrifice fly balls allowing Kinsler and Andrus to score. The Rangers ended up winning the game 2-1 and Jason Motte was charged with the loss.

Pujols inability to make such a simple play has led to the rapid development of conspiracy theories. Most of which center around Pujols throwing the 2011 World Series and then signing with the Texas Rangers in the upcoming offseason. A national poll conducted found that 99% of baseball fans believe this to be true.

^ Cite error: The named reference JS was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[JS-1] Cite error: The named reference JS was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

@@ Line 554: / Line 554: @@
 :::If you note, Cecil Fielder Began playing in Toronto in 1985 that would seem to corespond to his later statement that Prince was 1 year old in Toronro.--[[User:Cube lurker|Cube lurker]] ([[User talk:Cube lurker|talk]]) 14:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 ::::Yeah, it's inconclusive.  It's really more an issue of where Mrs. Fielder was in 1984! [[User:The Interior|<font color="brown">The</font><font color="green"> Interior</font>]] [[User Talk:The Interior|(Talk)]] 14:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
+== Jason Motte ==
+These two paragraphs need to be taken out of the bio as they are NOT relevant and defamatory to Albert Pujols.
+On October 20, 2011 Jason Motte blew a save during Game 2 of the 2011 World Series. Motte gave up a single to Ian Kinsler. Kinsler then stole second base like the hero that he is shortly before Elvis Andrus hit a single to shallow right-center field, advancing Kinsler to 3rd base. On the cutoff throw Albert Pujols was charged with an error after he failed to make a basic cutoff catch. On the next 2 pitches of the game, Josh Hamilton and Michael Young hit consecutive sacrifice fly balls allowing Kinsler and Andrus to score. The Rangers ended up winning the game 2-1 and Jason Motte was charged with the loss.
+Pujols inability to make such a simple play has led to the rapid development of conspiracy theories. Most of which center around Pujols throwing the 2011 World Series and then signing with the Texas Rangers in the upcoming offseason. A national poll conducted found that 99% of baseball fans believe this to be true.

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