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.

Daniel Tammet

I have raised concerns at Talk:Daniel_Tammet#Question that the talk page is being used for apparent negative lobbying against Tammet by anon IPs using sources such as forum posts and copyright violations on scribd. In my opinion the talk page itself is a BLP violation and fails to meet the guidelines of WP:NOTFORUM. As I have been challenged for being overly forceful, could someone take an independent view on whether any action is needed (such as collapsing or removing the more problematic discussions). --Fæ (talk) 05:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Fæ, I'm surprised that you are taking that angle, since you were the one who suggested that I report the users who were blocking the additions.

With the help of Off2riorob, Oughtprice99 removes all information from the page that mentions that a controversy exists. Everyone else agrees that the information from a bestselling book by a respected science journalist and former memory champion is worthy of inclusion. I don't know which scribd page you are talking about. All the sources that I've seen people trying to add are citing Foer's bestselling book and Tammet's own website.

Also note that a long discussion critical of the Wikipedia article was deleted by Off2riorob. The deleted section is here.[1]

This article is Wikipedia at its worst. Wikipedia is enabling a possible scam on neuroscience by forbidding the controversy to even be mentioned.

Here are the main sources being blocked by Oughtprice99, Off2riorob, and maybe one or two others:

• bestselling book by a science journalist and memory champion
• his own website

Based on those two credible sources, there is absolutely no question that the current article is highly inaccurate.

Bill121212 (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Based on the Amazon ranking, the "bestselling" book sells less than 1 copy per week, though the point raised was that claims have been made based on forum discussions and apparently copyright violating variations of the text rather than this book. The domain you refer to no longer exists as a website and is registered to "food fashion designs", its suitability as a source has already been discussed on the article talk page. Fæ (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the source of your numbers? It's still ranked #229 book on Amazon.com[2], and is one of the three books mentioned as representing the success of Pengiun Books[3]. There is even a movie.[4][5]

"Penguin’s eBook global sales grew 128 percent over the last year, and eBooks now represent 14 percent of the company’s total revenue. Titles like Kathryn Stockett’s The Help, Tom Clancy’s Against All Enemies and Joshua Foer’s Moonwalking with Einstein are among Penguin’s bestselling eBooks."

Average Customer Review: 4.2 out of 5 stars See all reviews (200 customer reviews). Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #229 in Books (See Top 100 in Books). #1 in Books > Self-Help > Memory Improvement. #3 in Books > Professional & Technical > Professional Science > Behavioral Sciences > Cognitive Psychology. #15 in Books > Science & Math

There were no copyright violations. Brief excerpts from books and websites are allowed. Websites are credible sources, and Wayback Machine is just a copy of what existed at the time. Wayback Machine even has its own template[6]. The website doesn't even have to be quoted to be used as a reference. Bill121212 (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.fonerbooks.com/surfing.htm has some reasonable analysis to refer to. --Fæ (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I moved your reply to the end of my comment, since it was in the middle. I'm not sure if the link is relevant. The book is the #229 book on Amazon, and #1 in Science & Math. Your link shows that it sells many more copies than 1 per week. Bill121212 (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

We might be looking at different listings, I was using this link on Amazon which shows the book at #565,484. --Fæ (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The UK site isn't accurate. Look at the US site and the links I posted above.[7] It's one of the bestselling books of the year, written by a former memory champion and respected science journalist who "has written for National Geographic, Esquire, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Slate." The issues brought up in the book prove beyond doubt that the current Wikipedia page is very inaccurate. Bill121212 (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The scribd.com link was to what appears to be a full reproduction of the book (it may be a faulty reproduction or to a draft version) without any evidence of a copyright release. --Fæ (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If a user cites a copyrighted book from Scribd, the solution is to change the reference from Scribd to the actual book, not to lock the page. Bill121212 (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Fae is right that the talk page is being used as a forum for negative lobbying against Tammet, in contravention of Wiki rules.

To add my few cents here: Foer's book did make bestseller lists in the US (btw, the popular novelist Jonathan Safran Foer is his brother). Foer and his book are both already mentioned by name in the article, as is the main contention of his chapter on Tammet. The only reliable published secondary source to refer to Foer's speculation (in the New York Times) is also referenced. Foer's book represents a contentious and minority viewpoint of Tammet as can be seen in the NYT review by a major psychologist, and the absence of any other reporting of it. Consensus among long-standing Wikipedian editors (not anon IPs, nor me either) was that Foer's perspective should be incorporated into the article, but marginally and sensitively owing to the points made above.

No one is denying that Foer's book is a source for editing this BLP article. Problems have only arisen from the weight that you and one or two other anon IP users want to give it. Tammet's own books (also bestsellers) are not used extensively either - the vast bulk of the article is based on reliable secondary sources that refer to them, etc. Foer's claims lack these reliable secondary sources. In addition, the only one to date, appearing in the New York Times, was negative.

Fae has already given a neutral, third-person party opinion on the use of a decade-old defunct promotional webpage as a source for a BLP article.

Finally, I cannot find a single reliable published secondary source that uses the word 'controversy' with Tammet. The main proponent appears to be the blog of a 'self-diagnosed' Aspergers housewife calling herself Lili Marlene, and who has contributed extensively to the talk page.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The ill-characterization of Talk Page is unhelpful.

‘Missteps in judgement’ about source is causing unnecessary dialogue – ‘psychic’ fact is unequivocally admitted by Tammet in Moonwalking with Einstein. Consensus for inclusion of reliably-sourced fact already established. Exerpt from p.192.

“After I (Tammet speaking) offered myself as a tutor and that wasn’t successful, I read an ad for someone who could do psychic readings. You could work from home and use the telephone. That was ideal for me. I wasn’t a psychic. I did it for about a year because I had no income otherwise. I was regularly told off, because I wasn’t giving advice. I was mostly just listening. I treated it, start to finish, only as an opportunity to listen to people. With hindsight, I wish I hadn’t done that work. But I was desperate.”

Not exceptional claim/suggestion. Tammet himself openly and unequivocally verifies working as psychic. Note, Foer interviewed Tammet three times over a one year period and took approx 2 years to research/write book. Due weight should be afforded to reliably-sourced fact. Request ideas for sensitive wording.188.29.4.145 (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

As I noted above, Foer's minority perspective has already been sensitively incorporated into the article, along with the title of his book for anyone wishing to read it for themselves. Cherry-picking excerpts with the sole aim of putting Tammet in the worst possible light are unlikely to generate editor consensus.

Again, no reliable published secondary source has discussed its chapter on Tammet - with the exception of a negative comment by a major psychologist in the New York Times. Wikipedia BLP articles can only accord 'due weight' to details that appear in (preferably, multiple) reliable published secondary sources - even more so when they are of a contentious nature.

Oughtprice99 (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Melanie Phillips

Melanie Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Does a claim that she (Melanie Phillips) was awarded "Bigot of the Year" per the Stonewall organization qualify as a contentious claim? Is sourcing this to Diva magazine sufficient (clearly the orgnaization which gave the award is a primary source)? Are mock awards (i.e. awards where the awardee dang well will not show up to accept the award) in general "contnetious" even where the strong charge of "bigot" or the like is absent (e.g. posit an "Enemy of the People" award) ? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't have an answer, but I think this is straightforwardly about the noteworthiness of the event or the opinion, not about contentiousness or whether the award is for a positive or a negative. The Razzies, for example, are noteworthy, so we include them in articles, even if the subject might not like us to.

I think it turns on whether or not the award by Stonewall was widely reported. --FormerIP (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There are other sources for this that show up in GNews: [8], [9], [10]. Being named "bigot of the year" is contentious, but then who would argue that Melanie Phillips in general strives not to be contentious? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec)It was reported in the "gay press" but not otherwise AFAICT ("Pinkpaper" is likely to be gay-oriented, etc.) (Digitaljournal is not RS Made up of professional journalists, citizen journalists, bloggers, passionate writers and regular Joes and Janes). As a rule, the recipients of "Razzies" do not have them noted in their biographies as a rule. (Great many Razzies given over the years - only a handful mentioned in BLPs, more often mentioned for movies which are not actually subject to WP:BLP IIRC) ) Halle Berry actually accepted that award, so her BLP is not a precedent here. And I think "Bigot of the Year" is generally considered "negative," and substantially more contentious than being called on for a poor performance - YMMV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

So the "gay press" isn't reliable? Not "mainstream" enough? Damn -- I thought we weren't in the 1970s anymore; I guess I'm younger than I thought I was. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a question of reliability so much as WP:UNDUE.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The viewpoint of an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority does not justify a mention, but the very publicly declared viewpoint of the largest gay equality organization in Europe probably does.Exok (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

While I accept that the award to Phillips doesn't seem to have been picked up by the wider UK press (beyond the gay press) this year; the awards (including reference to 'Bigot of the Year') have been covered by reports in previous years in "mainstream" papers such as The Guardian, The Independent, and The Telegraph. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

On a more general note

The claim is controversial or contentious but the fact that such claim has been made much less so. So a discussion of the 'reliability' of the sources only gets us that far. Taken out of the bio, the view of her being a bigot would still remain in Stonewall Awards but without any context or source. The other way round, we have the same disjoint coverage of views and topics. Currently the article on Melanie Phillips contains an extensive section on her own views, mostly sourced to herself with the occasional rebuttal but not that much comprehensive third party coverage. And inside there are many contentious claims regarding living persons that would never find their way into the articles on Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter, James Baker, John McCain or Independent Jewish Voices --Tikiwont (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC).

I think that's an important point -- and of course the relevant policy is WP:NPOV. I'll also repeat that Phillips herself quite obviously strives to be contentious (though with a slightly different meaning of the word). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Striving to be contentious, maybe. Although she'd probably say simply unafraid to air her views. At any rate, "bigot" is simply a term of abuse.--Scott Mac 00:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I point out that the wiki article on Bigotry defines a bigot as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern English refers to persons hostile to those of differing sex, race, ethnicity, religion or spirituality, nationality, language, inter-regional prejudice, gender and sexual orientation, age, homelessness, various medical disorders particularly behavioral disorders and addictive disorders." Nowhere in the article does it refer to it as a term of abuse. Indeed I have not yet either found a dictionary that describes it as a term of abuse. So can I clarify why you believe it to be a term of abuse in this context? Contaldo80 (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'd question why we have a huge "Political views" section in the bio. Most of it doesn't have any secondary sources - it's just issues that Wikipedia editors have chosen to spotlight. I'll bring it up on the talk page, but I think most of it should be deleted unless sources can be found to show that her views on these issues are notable.   Will Beback  talk  01:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Michael Moore

Please have a look at the reference used in the third paragraph of the Political views of the Michael Moore article. It does not seem reasonable to me that I would need to watch an hour and a half documentary to check for accuracy of a statement. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You could request a time stamp. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Have added a tag asking for clarification. --BwB (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have given this post enough time and it seems that more experienced editors have no concern over this material. Here is the material covered by the documentary that is being used as a reference:

During September and October 2004, Moore spoke at universities and colleges in swing states during his "Slacker Uprising Tour". The tour gave away ramen and underwear to young people who promised to vote. This provoked public denunciations from the Michigan Republican Party and attempts to convince the government that Moore should be arrested for buying votes, but since Moore did not tell the "slackers" involved for whom to vote, just to vote, district attorneys refused to get involved. Quite possibly the most controversial stop during the tour was Utah Valley State College in Orem, Utah. A fight for his right to speak ensued and resulted in massive public debates and a media blitz. Death threats, bribes and lawsuits followed. The event was chronicled in the documentary film This Divided State.[48][clarification needed]

I would have thought that an article on a living person, especially an extremely controversial person, would require better referencing than one documentary. Gandydancer (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the first part of the paragraph (the part about buying votes, etc.) is in the documentary. None of the reviews of the documentary I've read (and I've now read many) mentions it. So, I removed that and reworded the rest, which now reads:

During September and October 2004, Moore spoke at universities and colleges in swing states during his "Slacker Uprising Tour". The tour gave away ramen and underwear to students who promised to vote.[48][49] One stop during the tour was Utah Valley State College. A fight for his right to speak resulted in massive public debates and a media blitz. The Utah event was chronicled in the documentary film This Divided State.[During September and October 2004, Moore spoke at universities and colleges in swing states during his "Slacker Uprising Tour". The tour gave away ramen and underwear to students who promised to vote.[48][49] One stop during the tour was Utah Valley State College. A fight for his right to speak resulted in massive public debates and a media blitz. The Utah event was chronicled in the documentary film This Divided State.[50]

I found some refs for the ramen and underwear (one's a press release, so it doesn't really count, but the other is okay, and I put in the press release anyway for more context). Based on the rewording, I don't think it's particuarly contentious. What do you think, Gandydancer?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I felt that you did a good job, however the editor that I have been dealing with has altered your edit. I will leave it up to you to decide if it still complys with Wikipedia standards. Gandydancer (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The other editor's change was reverted by another editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware and as expected the edit has been reversed. Also, would you please have a look at the rate that the talk pages are being archived? I believe that the time for archiving has been changed to hide the fact that this article has seen considerable debate. This is discussed at the bottom of the last page archived. Would it be possible to return the talk to at least the discussions as late as October? Thanks for your help. Gandydancer (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon (Guilt by association?)

Gilad Atzmon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I’ve been procrastinating posting anything about the many WP:Undue and WP:POV issues in Gilad Atzmon until I had more updated WP:RS balancing info and because of behavioral issues that needed (and still need) addressing. So, better late than never, a couple relatively easy issues which the only involved editor refuses to discuss, just saying basically “no you are wrong.” Full details, diffs, policy quotes and discussion at Talk:Gilad_Atzmon#New_Edits_I_believe_violate_WP:RS_and_WP:BLP.

The major issue being that I put in a more than adequate quote from Alan Dershowitz in one section: He writes that “hard-core neo-Nazis, racists, anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers” endorse Atzmon, including David Duke, Kevin B. MacDonald and Israel Shamir.[98] Nevertheless, an editor insists that another section have two paragraphs with quotes from the Dershowitz article, one each for David Duke and Kevin MacDonald, both praising Atzmon. This is an obvious guilt by association attack and just WP:Undue quoting of minor characters for obvious POV reasons. Any NPOV community input at the article talk page appreciated. CarolMooreDC 00:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that those who read the history of the article will find that Carolmooredc's characterization that the argument is between only her and myself is not sustainable by the record, and I encourage her not to engage in that sort of well-poisoning in regard to her version of what she claims my position is. Related information is on my talk page.

As both Duke and MacDonald do indeed praise Atzmon, and these praises have been noted by WP:RS, they are not somehow immune from inclusion, nor are they "obvious" guilt by association (more well-poisoning). Goodwinsands (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we are talking about this edit which is one example of the Dershowitz text being added. Wikipedia should not be used to amplify an obvious smear. When a secondary source provides an analysis showing how the opinion of some neo-Nazis is significant to the subject of the BLP, suitable material can be added. However, "I found a source" is not a valid reason for adding material to any article, and coatracking obvious guilt-by-association attacks into a BLP is not acceptable. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Dershowitz elsewhere in his piece addresses the issue of Atzmon's anti-Semitism as an attraction for racists, providing the context for his reference to Duke. Adding this argument would satisfy the significance requirement you mention. Goodwinsands (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I quoted Dershowitz on Duke and MacDonald as a replacement for those two paragraphs which I then deleted. Though the MacDonald one might be ok if the extra Dershowitz commentary removed, though another editor has expressed concern about "cherry picking" Atzmon's response and I'm ambivalent on that one myself. CarolMooreDC 12:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The Duke case is no different in any substantial way than the MacDonald case. Both are well-known professional racists and pseudo-academics who have been attracted by Atzmon's flow of anti-Semitic rhetoric. As Dershowitz notes, they see what Atzmon's getting at, and they're on board.

If anything, the case is stronger for keeping Duke over MacDonald, because as far as I know, Kevin MacDonald has only addressed Atzmon's positions once, while Duke posts Atzmon material on his site repeatedly, often with new and very complimentary introductions. Nor has MacDonald written an open letter praising Atzmon as 'brilliant' as Duke has. Goodwinsands (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You're making the case for deleting both Duke and MacDonald. My rule of thumb in this situation is "how far-reaching is the opinion expressed". If lots of people comment on the Duke/Atzmon connection, then Duke is in. If lots of people comment on the MacDonald connection, then MacDonald is in. What there is now is insufficient to establish a wide reach. Dershowitz is not enough. Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

An admin brought same issue here a month ago

I somehow failed to note that this whole David Duke topic was brought here a month ago by an administrator User:Malik Shabazz at this archive. These editors just keep arguing to keep this material in and reverting policy based deletions of the material. I think it's time to identify the worst offenders and to step this up to Special enforcement on biographies of living persons. Especially since this is a case where there is an organized British campaign to cancel this man's gigs and destroy his musical career; one public critic has admitted writing against him outside of Wikipedia; various hostile editors have disrupted, been banned or retired once threatened with sanctions; some anonymous IPs have had British locations. This kind of abuse of Wikipedia is one of the main reasons I have continued to work on this article as long as I have. What is the next step? Advice welcome. CarolMooreDC 17:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked at this article for the first time just now, and I was struck by the interplay of the Activism section, which essentially details Atzmon's views about Jews, Zionism, etc., and the very long Allegations of antisemitism section. Without going through it bit by bit, my immediate reaction was the antisemitism section is simply too long, it has too much material in it. We should present a summary of the views against Atzmon and his reaction, not this onslaught. He's too easy a target and it just looks like overkill.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree and other editors and I have managed to get it cut back in the past, but there are a couple editors who keep trying to put more and more in and yell white wash when you want to delete the most dated and/or repetitive and/or questionable accusations. I've been here several times about this. CarolMooreDC 06:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Demi Moore's birth name

There is a dispute over whether Demi Moore's birth name is Demetria or just Demi. We have several tweets from her verified Twitter feed, saying that she was born Demi and that her name has never been Demetria. See this, this and this. Then we have someone using news articles (which never quotes Demi), saying that her name is Demetria. What I would think has happened, is that Demetria is just a rumor that first spread during the 90s in magazines, and has then been interpreted as fact by other magazines after that. Nymf _hideliho! 21:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I've also begun a thread at the Reliable Sources noticeboard asking whether a Twitter feed is a reliable source. For some reason, I think the mainstream press (particularly reliable secondary sources per WP:V and WP:RS) are a little more reliable than a Twitter feed. I also have to say I find this episode highly amusing. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

So why do you suppose that she - over 4 different occasions - has said that her name is not and has never been Demetria? The links are all in the post above. Nymf _hideliho! 21:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That she said that (which she did not) is not verifiable because you don't have a reliable source. You still need to read WP:V and WP:RS. That's ok though, the most important part of youth is learning from your mistakes. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you are on about. Let me quote the verified Twitter account: "No it is just Demi Gene it was never Demitria!". Like I asked you at my talk page, are you going to let the article stay incorrect due to bureaucracy? Nymf _hideliho! 21:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That twitter is verified and she is a reliable source for her middle name. Youreallycan (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Since when is Twitter a reliable source? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Verified twitter accounts are primary reliable sources for simple details about living people. Youreallycan (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

So you're really saying a Twitter feed should be accepted over multiple established secondary media sources? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The only accessible support for that other middle name appears to be the People which could easily be incorrect. A dubious middle name, disputed and denied by a living subject is of no added value to a reader as regards her notability and we rather remove it. That feed - is the living person that is the subject of the biography and, although a primary source and we don't allow subjects to write their own articles - something so minor and irrelevant to her notability as a disputed middle names that is clearly not well known or reported even if it was correct, she is a very reliable source about herself. Celebs/notable people often tweet corrections or denials on their twitter feeds when their wikipedia biographies contain false information - If you refuse to remove it as a minimum you should add to the lede that she denies and disputes that was her birth name and add the twitter link to that denial. Youreallycan (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Further to that, the fact that it is on Twitter is irrelevant if it can be verified to be her - which it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Twitter is a primary source, not a reliable source. Please point to a policy that says verified twitter (or any self published source by a person) is considered a reliable source. (weasel) compromize - State the naeme has been reported to be X by Y, but Demi's twitter has claimed this to be false. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish. Demi Moore is the primary source, and where she says it is irrelevant. She is clearly a reliable source for her own name unless and until evidence can be obtained to the contrary: 'reliable sources' get things wrong all the time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

She is a primary source. please read WP:BLPPRIMARY. In fact, I shall quote the relevant portion. Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

Gaijin42 (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

As a counter argument, regardless of reliable or not. If demi has expressed a desire to not have that name known WP:PRIVACY may apply, but in that case we should not state that demi is her legal name. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Using the subject as a self-published source - WP:SELFPUB - Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources. - seems reasonable to me. You dispute her claim and provide some citations like the People but for the negligible value of the disputed name I think in such a case BLP supports the subjects position. Youreallycan (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Rs#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. And note that this specifically refers to "social networking sites". As for stating her 'legal name', Wikipedia articles aren't legal documents - we shouldn't be implying they are. If someone wishes to add a footnote to the effect that "some sources have claimed her name is Demetria, but she has asserted that this is incorrect", that would probably be acceptable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't Twitter a social networking site? Just sayin... Night Ranger (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is. Now read the page I linked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I did read it. I'm not actually arguing with you. Night Ranger (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think this is a clear example of where WP:IAR applies; normally we prefer reliable sources to primary sources, but there is a clear case for an exception here. A verified twitter account is obviously a primary source for her. Is there any obvious reason for her to lie about her name? I can think of a few instances in which an actress might lie, such as about her age and so forth, but there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason for her to lie about her birth name. The over-riding principle to Wikipedia is verifiability which doesn't preclude primary sources, and we have a clear opportunity to exercise some discretion and add a verifiable and accurate fact to her biography. Betty Logan (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  That's what I think as well, but I got laughed at for thinking so. Either way, I am okay with the current version for now. Nymf _hideliho! 15:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

IAR isn't supposed to be used to circumvent sourcing policy. But there seems to be a compromise getting worked out, which is nice. Night Ranger (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is, but the sources we choose are mostly left to our discretion as editors, as in we don't have a strict hierarchy of sources. Maybe I'm wrong in my interpretation of this, but WP:V doesn't compel us to choose reliable sources over primary sources, it just indicates it as good practice to do so i.e. reliable sources are strongly preferred rather than you must use reliable sources. If the claim is sourced using a primary source then that still actually complies with the policies on sourcing; IAR essentially allows editorial discretion where good practice can be counter-productive. Anyway it's academic now since there seems to have been a compromise. Betty Logan (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

One more for writing the longer statement: "even though published sources have written that her birth name was originally Demetria[ref][ref][ref], she herself has stated it has always been Demi[ref][ref]." That's even better than just stating either one, otherwise readers will think we don't know about the controversy. --GRuban (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Having two tweets saying essentially the same thing is repetitive and undue weight. --108.21.104.134 (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

A Few points,

1. Even a verified twitter account does not guarantee that the individual tweeting is the verified individual. For instance @50cent is verified as Curtis Jackson in reality the account the account is run by a Chris Romero. Working on a social media campaign last year, it was revealed to me that this was the case for a number of celebrity accounts that are highly popular and had been influential in a previous successful campaign (revealed by the successful campaigns organiser). It is implied in the media that Moore does handle her account personally but it is not guaranteed and we certainly can't make such an assumption about Moore or any other Tweet as a source. Statements made by twitter accounts may not be reliable, primary, or self asserted.
2. A number of sources (such as this one already cited within the article) make discussion of the contents of her Birth Certificate giving both the "Demetria" name and explaining the reason for the "Guynes" surname on her birth certificate (despite Guynes being her Step rather than Biological father's surname). We presume that Reliable secondary sources have done some fact checking with her certificate before making these claims, but ideally the primary source should be checked and cited to corroborate the secondary sources either asserting Demi, or Demetria. (note it should be cited with the secondary sources not engaging in WP:OR by citing alone)
3. There are any number of secondary sources out there (mainly from around 2005) which cite Moore's name as coming from a 1960's cosmetic line called "Demetria" (just google)however the occasional one that actually quotes Moore (such as this blog) says "My mother named me Demi – which she found, of all things, as part of the name of a make-up.” it seems discussion of this fact creates the uncertainty - whether Moore has been paraphrased in the past by secondary sources altering it to imply her full name was that of the cosmetic rather than part of.
4. There may be some WP:CIRCULAR issues as we first made the claim (unsourced) in May 2003 [11]- This may have come from IMDB but as they don't source and don't keep histories of old biographies we only have the fact that her Bio was linked to IMDB in June 2003 to go on. Archive.org's oldest copy of her biography on IMDB [12] dates from 2004 but already has the claim inserted. It's quite possible that from then ownwards our use of "Demetria" has led to it being used in current secondary sources.

All in all the current version is the best way to proceed just now, but we may require improved sourcing to clarify the issue once and for all. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think our current version is silly and a BLP violation to boot. We say "though disputed by Moore,[1] many sources give her birth name as Demetria or Demitria.[2][3][4][5]". That makes it sound like we don't believe her. And having this as the second sentence of her biography gives this total non-issue way too much weight!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Roberto Luongo

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

Roberto Luongo's mom is not Irish Canadian, that is absolutely false. It is well documented in various interviews and articles (www.panoramitalia.com), that both his parents are Italian! Please have this changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gio8284 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times source cited says "The son of an Italian immigrant father and an Irish-Canadian mother, Luongo speaks English, Italian and French" and the L’Espresso source cited quotes Luongo as saying "Papà Antonio è di Avellino, mamma Pasqualina è canadese discendente irlandese." Sean.hoyland - talk 15:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Fox News Channel

I removed remarks about a living person (Roger Ailes) that I believe violate BLP and made that clear in the edit summary. This [13] and this [14]. User:JamesMLane, the original author of them, restored the libel again here [15]. Another editor also warned him about the probable BLP issue. Now we are here...... Niteshift36 (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Roger Ailes made a statement critical of University of Maryland researchers who conducted a published a study. He didn't like their conclusions so he said that they had run a "push poll". Wikipedia reports his opinion, and reports the opinion of Ann Coulter that it was a "hoax poll". These comments -- obviously negative and contentious about the living persons who conducted the study -- are reported in Wikipedia here. This passage is but one example where it's recognized that BLP doesn't exclude accusations of dishonesty from articles. A fortiori, it doesn't exclude them from talk pages.

In the comment complained of by Niteshift36, I stated my opinion that Ailes was lying, based on the information in our own article about push polls. My comment was relevant to the discussion on that talk page, which concerned what Wikipedia should say about the various studies of this type, and in particular whether we should continue to report Ailes's statement. The interpretation sought by Niteshift36 would stifle discussion of such subjects. JamesMLane t c 01:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Had you said that "in your opinion he was lying", that would be different and we wouldn't be here. You didn't. You said "he is lying...". You further went on to call his response a "lie", stated in a declarative sense. When it was edited, you had the opportunity to edit your words to make them reflective of an opinion. You chose to just revert. Pretending that you are being censored is a joke. State your opinion, just do it within the policies. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It is manifestly clear from the context and from the content of my statement that I was expressing my personal opinion. Do you think we need to edit our report of Coulter's statement to say that she expressed her personal opinion that the study was a "hoax poll"? I don't. I think our current text, reporting Coulter's negative and contentious statement about living persons on staff at the University of Maryland, is perfectly fine, because readers will recognize that the statement was an expression of opinion without our using that word. (Incidentally, a statement that actually is defamatory doesn't become non-defamatory when prefaced with the magic word "opinion", at least under American law. "Senator Jerkenblock took bribes" is defamatory, but so is "In my opinion, Senator Jerkenblock took bribes.") JamesMLane t c 01:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• "He is a liar" is different than "I think that's a lie". You know it. At least I think you are smart enough to know the difference. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course there's a difference, but it's not the one you're implying. "He is a liar", "I think he's a liar", and "In my opinion he's a liar" all relate to the subject's overall character because they imply that he habitually lies. "That statement is a lie", "I think that statement is a lie", and "In my opinion that statement is a lie" all relate to the truth or falsity of one particular statement. I've always tried to follow the sound advice of St. Augustine: "Love men. Slay errors." I would avoid saying "He is a liar" but that wouldn't stop me from calling out a specific falsehood. JamesMLane t c 04:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Obviously I'm not the only one who sees this is a concern. Since you will not listen to a word I say, I'll let them entertain your questions. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that I won't listen to you. From my point of view, I've spent an inordinate amount of time reading your comments carefully and giving detailed responses. You choose not to respond to my questions. We'll have to agree to disagree and let each reader form his or her own judgment. JamesMLane t c 18:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• I appreciate your effort to say that you feel sorry about it, but to be blunt, I don't believe you are the least bit sorry about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

In my view, it doesn't matter whether it's your opinion. You have no business stating that a BLP is lying on a Talk page. Saying someone is lying is stating a fact and, if untrue, is libelous. Thus, without a source to back it up and a reason for saying it in the first place (improving the article), it should be removed as Niteshift did.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You write, "Saying someone is lying is stating a fact and, if untrue, is libelous." I'm not sure but my guess is that, as a statement of American law, that's too broad and unqualified. The point isn't worth pursuing, though, because legal standards aren't the be-all and end-all.

As for my specific statement: Did I have a source to back it up? If you trouble to read the actual comment you're condemning, you'll see that I did. Ailes's statement contradicts facts reported in a prominent online encyclopedia. I also noted his motive, in that the living persons whom he was smearing had published information that he preferred people not learn or not believe. Did I have an article-related reason for saying it in the first place? Yes, I did, as you'll see if (again) you trouble to read my actual comment, in the context that I mentioned on this very page; I was addressing the currently contentious issue of how Wikipedia should handle studies concerning information levels of Fox News viewers.

By the way, I note that you don't address the specific examples I mentioned and helpfully linked for you. Is it proper for Wikipedia to memorialize and disseminate Ann Coulter's assertion that living persons associated with a reputable university are perpetrating a hoax? Is there "a source to back it up"? JamesMLane t c 04:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You do go on and on. I was just supporting removal of the comment, which I still support.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

As to my talk-page comment, which was negative about a Fox News defender, you think it should be removed. As to similar article-space comments, which were negative about Fox News critics, you express no opinion. I was just trying to understand whether you were applying a general principle, and you've answered the question. Thank you. JamesMLane t c 01:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• That's been part of your problem here and at the article. You keep trying to drag other conversations into each and keep trying to craft transparent "gotcha" hypotheticals. What you discussed at the FNC controversies articles doesn't apply to the FNC article. What we are discussing here is a specific set of BLP violating remarks that you made, then restored, not Ann Coulter, the Univ or Maryland or any other shiny objects you've tried to use to distract from the fact that everyone who has weighed in here agrees that the remarks violated BLP, should be removed and should not be restored. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

As I explained there and mentioned here, the reason to "drag" other examples into the discussion is my belief that questions like the one you raised should be decided based on neutral principles of general applicability. I have long realized that not everyone shares that view. (This particular tempest reinforces that sad conclusion.) It's certainly less effort to simply find some statement you don't like and criticize it. At any rate, your denunciation of me has been sitting here for a while without attracting the attention of any admins, so we're basically talking to ourselves to no purpose. I'll try to muster the self-discipline to refrain from responding to your next post, and we can both move on. JamesMLane t c 04:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• What admin attention is needed? I opened the discussion here so you could see the opinions of uninvolved editors (and they agree that you were wrong). Further, you haven't reverted the material that violates BLP. There is no need for an admin. If you had/do, then this would likely go to ANI, where it would certainly get "admin attention". As it stands, there is nothing an admin is needed for, so using that as a yardstick for anything is fairly empty. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oooops, spoke too soon. Apparently I gave you too much credit and thought you actually "got it". Niteshift36 (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You wrote, "Had you said that 'in your opinion he was lying', that would be different and we wouldn't be here." Therefore, while still disagreeing with your position, I modified my comment to state expressly that it reflected only my opinion. I was assuming that I could rely on your own statement of your own position. Did I give you too much credit? JamesMLane t c 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW - calling a poll a "hoax poll" or "push poll" is not an attack on any specific person. Calling a specific named individual a "liar" is an attack. Cavils otherwise fail utterly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if the distinction you're drawing is (1) using a name versus saying something about a person without using his or her name, or (2) saying something about one person versus saying something about a group. The first distinction makes no sense (and, incidentally, isn't recognized in American law of defamation). "Roger Ailes is a liar" and "The head of Fox News is a liar" say the same thing. The issue is whether the subject is identifiable. As for the second, there's a level at which a statement is nominally "about" so many people that it's functionally about none of them. American law doesn't recognize "blood libel", so a statement like "All Jews are X" or "All lawyers are Y" isn't defamatory of any individual and no action will lie. For a small, identifiable group, however, you can certainly defame more than one person at a time. Suppose Ann Coulter had said, "In my opinion, the people at the University of Maryland who issued this report didn't actually interview anyone or conduct a study; they just made up a bunch of purported responses that suited their liberal agenda." The University of Maryland researchers would have a good action against her for defamation. Even though she didn't repeat their names, the names are on the report, so her statement is about them, thus about a handful of identifiable people. Furthermore, she isn't expressing a pure opinion, one shielded from defamation claims, because her statement would be making specific factual allegations about the researchers. Also, as I've pointed out above, she wouldn't be able to escape liability for the hypothetical statement by saying that she labeled it her opinion. Her actual statement of "hoax poll" isn't quite as clear-cut in its imputation as my example, but a defense of "I didn't use the name of any specific person" wouldn't fly.

For an example closer to home, suppose I were to say "In my opinion, the Wikipedia editors opposing the inclusion of the Fairleigh Dickinson University study are right-wing POV-pushers." That statement would be labeled "opinion", which Niteshift36 seems to think makes an important difference, and it would meet your test because it would not be an attack on any one specific named individual. Would that make it OK? Obviously not; it would still violate WP:NPA and WP:AGF. JamesMLane t c 18:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• So if I said "In my opinion, someone who professes to be 'hostile to the right wing' while claiming to 'love men' at the same time is a hypocrite", would that be an attack or an opinion? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be both. The two are not inconsistent. I think an American court would probably hold it not to be libel (a term you introduced at the top of this thread), because it's expressing a nonactionable opinion rather than making an assertion of fact, but it would violate WP:NPA. It would also violate St. Augustine's directive, but the good Bishop hasn't secured Wikipedia community consensus to make his view an official policy. JamesMLane t c 19:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• There is no question that it isn't libel. That's why I didn't ask about libel. I asked if it would be an "attack", as in the NPA policy were were discussing. As for your attempt to explain why my opinion would be wrong....really don't care if you agree with it and didn't ask for an explaination of the position. But thanks for playing anyway.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• User:Drmies, apparently at the invitation of NiteShift36, has made an effort to address this question from a policy standpoint on his talk page, and I've responded. The discussion will presumably continue there. JamesMLane t c 12:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• You seemed to think that none if this discussion matters unless it gets "admin attention". I brought it to the attention of an admin (who agrees that you are violating BLP) and he warned you. Of course you are arguing with him, but that's a separate matter. To recap: I said it violated BLP and you protested. Uninvolved editors have said you were wrong and you protested. An admin told you that you are wrong and you protest. I think everyone can see the trend here. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Eh, JamesMLane, no. There will be no continuation on my talk page: it is done. Finished. Gone to meet its maker. Niteshift's summary is truthful but not complete: two admins agree with Niteshift's interpretation of the BLP policy, and that is all there is to it. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've copied to my talk page the material that Drmies deleted from his talk page. He has declined to address whether there's a BLP violation in the article space passage that I quoted here. The current status is that my opinion critical of a right-wing figure has been removed from talk space over my objection, but several comments by right-wing figures critical of other living persons remain in article space. The discussion is "finished" in the sense that this disparate application of the BLP policy will remain in place. JamesMLane t c 02:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: I haven't looked deep into this) Have you attempted to edit the parts of the article that you are talking about? Were they reverted? What was the rationale? Arkon (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for asking an intelligent question. I haven't edited the article because I believe that its current text is proper. In my view, BLP does not bar negative opinions about living persons, whether in article space (reported, but not adopted, by being attributed to a prominent spokesperson, with citation) or in talk space (when it's clear that it's the user's own opinion and it's relevant to an article content issue). My beef is that my talk-page comment was deleted based on a much more sweeping interpretation of BLP. For me to delete the analogous material from the article, just to point out the inconsistency, would be pure WP:POINTy disruption -- although, I confess, I was tempted.

If you think the more sweeping interpretation of BLP is correct, you can look at this edit, where I quoted the article text and explained why it violates that interpretation. JamesMLane t c 05:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Chris Brown reverts

Hi, just saying that Chris Brown (veterinarian) article has been reverted twice to a formless stub & the reverter (User talk:Figaro) seems to have a different idea of wikipedia mos formatting of biographical articles & has asserted their right to revert quickly within 3 days. Can someone please keep an eye on this. It's minor but quite unnecessary imho. I have approached the user & left a cc on the article's talk page. I'm a relatively recent editor & don't quite know what's involved. Manytexts (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved. Many thanks. Manytexts (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Natalie Wood

Natalie Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just before the Thanksgiving anniversary of Natalie Wood's death by drowning in 1981, Dennis Davern, the Wagner's boat captain at the time, announced that he was releasing a revised version of his book on the drowning in which he changes his story and now accuses Wood's husband, Robert Wagner of being responsible for her death. He was interviewed in the news on November 18 and 19, 2011 promoting his book and repeating these accusations.

The section of her biography covering Natalie Wood's death relies heavily on these press interviews with Davern, including tabloids like the Daily Mail. His recent version of events, as reported in the press, is used as a source for Wagner's actions and words.

Is this a correct use of sources to implicate a living person, Robert Wagner, in the death of his wife?

Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

p.s. I was advised to post here at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard:

"Whether or not Davner's account is libellous, and the secondary sources are libelling Wagner by repeating it, and Wikipedia is doing the same by including it is another matter, but it's not an RS problem. I would run it by the BLP guys at WP:BLPN and get their input. Betty Logan"[16] MathewTownsend (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"...in which he changes his story and now accuses Wood's husband, Robert Wagner of being responsible for her death." For clarity, could you link to something that substantiates this.

Our article here does not contain that accusation.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Methinks MathewTownsend is overstating. From what I can see, there is no implcation in the article that Wagner killed Wood. Indeed, there isn't even anything in the article that states Davern is now accusing Wagner of killing Wood. If you read the article with NPOV eyes (and we can't assume that those reading the article even know about the new allegations or the case being reopened and why), there's only content that includes conflicting reports of what happened the night of Wood's death from Wagner and Davern. In fact, one could look at the article and think, "Davern's lying" just as easily as another could look at the article and think, "Wagner's lying". It's all in the eyes of the reader, but I don't believe the article - as it is now - leads anyone to either conclusion. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• BLP concern I am bringing this up perwp:blp concerns as quoted from the wp:blp guidelines: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

All the Davner material comes from his interviews with the press on November 18 and 19, in which he is promoting the release of his revised book containing his "new memories" and his accusations that Wagner was responsible for his wife's death. The actual book is not referenced or apparently consulted in the "Death" section. Just the quotes from Davner that load a 30-year-old death toward recentism of a couple of weeks ago. Nothing Davner says is supported by the sheriff homicide detective who says the investigators have not talked to Davner yet, according to the sources given. The case was reopened because several sources had come forward with new information, other than Davner, so why should Davner's version be given such credibility? The detective stressed that Wagner is not a suspect. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're bringing this up as a BLP concern why are you now talking reliability (after being told at the Reliable Sources noticeboard that there was no reliability issue)? From what you're saying here, I'm starting to sense forum shopping out of a frustration that you didn't get what you were looking for previously. Of course, I could be wrong. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Reply to request for links above:

• Sources given in the "Death" section in which Davern accuses Wagner of being responsible for his wife's death. Examples:

• "Asked on America’s Today breakfast TV show yesterday if he thought Wagner was responsible for Wood’s death, Davern replied: ‘Yes, I would say so. Yes.’"[17]
• "When pressed by Gregory, Davern said he believed Wagner had intentionally kept the investigation into her death low-profile. And when asked if he thought Wagner was "responsible" for Wood's death, Davern said, "yes, I would say so. Yes."[18]
• Also:New Natalie Wood Accusations Aimed at Robert Wagner MathewTownsend (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• First of all, I would like to defend MathewTownsend from charges of forum shopping, I specifically asked him to come here. If this was not the correct procedure then I take responsibility for ill-advising him and apologise. The discussion did start off on another board (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Natalie_Wood) in relation to the sources; since the sources were mainly mainstream media sources that are generally regarded as reliable sources I didn't think there was an RS issue, but they do imply Wagner's complicity in Wood's death, even if it is only to the point they are implying his account is not wholly truthful. If there is a problem with these claims, I felt it is not so much where they are coming from as to what is actually being insinuated. I felt this board was better equipped to look it over and see if there are any issues of concern. After all, there might be legal implications if an article insinuates that he had some involvement in her death—that aren't backed up by legal findings—so it's probably wise for someone experienced in these types of things to give it a once over. Betty Logan (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Based on one of the pillars of WP, the material should be removed:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

All of those factors are relevant. They're discussed extensively on the talk page. I'm actually amazed that after all the ANI postings the material is still on a news-related article. This tabloid fodder should have been moved a long time ago.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Since CNN provided some details of what Wavern said, and doubtless other WP:RS did as well, I can see a problem with just providing those details in a neutral fashion in one or two sentences. It makes it clear that Wikipedia is on top of details and deflects the inevitable urge by a possibly less experienced editor to throw in a lot of details. Repeating this sort of information from a WP:BLP source is not a BLP issue if done in a neutral, non-sensational fashion. CarolMooreDC 19:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Fictional novel as a RS

One of the obvious problems that I see is that any of the RSs which have relied on Davern's book would invalidate themselves, as they rely on a fictionalized account. For instance, the CNN story, one of the primary ones used as a source, includes this:

Dennis Davern, the former captain of the yacht Splendour broke his long silence with a detailed account in "Goodbye Natalie, Goodbye Splendour," a book he wrote with his friend Marti Rulli.

It doesn't take much effort, IMO, after reading portions of the book online, that it's a dramatic fictionalization based on a true story. The book is a continual recreation of minute events with tons of quotes. Unless Davern carried around a tape recorder and in bed, there is no way that quotes should have been used everywhere in that book-novel. Neither the novel, based on a true incident, or any secondary news sources who seemed to have relied on it, should be a RS for this article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

An editor above wrote that her article "does not contain that accusation" that Wagner was responsible for her death. However, by including a source entitled, Local Boat Captain: Robert Wagner Responsible for Natalie Wood's Death, it has the same effect.(cited source)

That source, like most of the other recent ones, also used Davern's book as a primary source: "'We didn't take any steps to see if we could locate her,' Davern added. Many of the details he shared have appeared in the book Goodbye Natalie, Goodbye Splendour authored by Marti Rulli."

As a clear semi-fictional account, the book should not be used by any news media as a source of information. Publishing such accusations based on a novel is libelous, by any definition. For WP to cite it as a RS doesn't seem like a great idea. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment:"Fictional novel"? That's ridiculous. Google Books lists the book as "Biography & Autobiography" link is here; Amazon.com lists it under "Biographies & Memoirs" link is here; Barnes and Noble lists it as a "Biography" link is here; the Library of Congress has it listed as a biography, for heaven's sake link is here. It's a biography - not a work of "fiction" as you are erroneously maintaining. Lhb1239 (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Those links simply use whatever descriptive tags the publisher gives them. I doubt whether any "human reader" could call the book a "non fiction" account, which is what the average person would expect from a "biography" stacked in the "biography" section of a book store. It's equivalent to a film drama based on a true story. It's a dramatization. It's the difference between reading "science" and "science fiction." Max Saunders wrote a whole book on this style of writing he called "autobiografiction," which has basically diluted the distinction between fiction and autobiography. It's not even "journalism," but more like "journalism bait," as we can see. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I seriously have to laugh at what you are saying here. Two weeks ago you said everything in the "Death" section of the Wood article needed to be removed because it could affect the newly opened criminal investigation into Wood's death. Now you're seriously wanting us to believe that the United States Library of Congress has wrongly categorized the book as a biography??? Lhb1239 (talk) 07:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me - I didn't realize you also wrote fiction. What I said was, I think it's probably necessary to thin that section to not to affect a pending case. But even stranger than fiction is the fact that it was you who quickly responded, "I agree. In my opinion, it reads more like a fan novel." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I said that weeks ago about a prior version of the section, not the section that currently stands. I also made it clear that your erroneous claim the article could affect the repoened criminal case was ridiculous. If you're going to quote other editors, please be sure to do it honestly and in context. Lhb1239 (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for opinions

So far it seems no admins have offered their opinion about whether this book can be a RS based on the problems noted above. Is there a better place to discuss this question? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:RSN is the place for asking whether a source is reliable or not. What I suspect the answer will be, is that the source is a reliable one for representing Davern's POV. There is then a question of neutrality and ensuring we represent any information from the book as being Davern's POV and juxtapose that information with other sources that give other points of view ensuring the whole article is balanced. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The article section in question is already balanced by the use of more than one source as to the events surrounding Wood's death. Davern's POV is just one scenario presented, the POV book by Wood's husband, Robert Wagner, is another. The POV account by a witness on another boat is presented. The POV account of how Wood died is presented through the coroner's report. WP:NPOV is policy directed at those editing Wikipedia, not those writing what may be later used as reliable sources. The book by Davern meets the guidelines for WP:RS. I think the days-long silence by admins at this report speaks volumes: there's no RS issue with Davern's book. Lhb1239 (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Admins are not ultimate authorities on issues, they're just editors who also are the (underappreciated, IMNSHO) cleanup crew. The lack of admin input really doesn't mean anything, since admin input on a reliable sources issue doesn't count for any more than anybody else's. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I was not questioning the balance of the article and I agree with your assessment of it. I was illustrating that the question of "is this source reliable?" is answered relative to how the source is used and the other sources it is compared to. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Do you think that 8 references to interviews with Davern about second and new book to be published on Thanksgiving, the 30th anniversary of Natalie Wood's death is appropriate, when Wagners 2004 book (seven years ago) is referenced once? Notice that neither of Davern's two books on the subject (in which he changes his story) is referenced. Nor are his original statements to the police (still another Davern version). Only the news articles of November 18, 2011. And notice that Wagner's recent statements are ignored. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Is a NPOV possible from non-neutral sources?

There is still more talk going on about her death which deserves some attention. It seems heavily weighted by comments from two parties to the incident. The primary neutral party by definition are the police investigators which had declared her death an accident. The two parties disputing each other are her husband and the boat's captain, each of whom are quoted from their books or secondary sources relying on their books. The captain blames Wagner, although he did not witness foul play. While the case was reopened from some new, undisclosed information, the case is still considered an accidental death.

However, an editor has chosen to overwhelm the official conclusions by quoting the two non-neutral parties, the captain and husband, both of whom are obviously part of the new investigation. The single sentence conclusion that it was an accident now makes up less than a few percent of the death section, which is now flooded with selected recent comments. Some uninvolved editors have implied that the section might be neutral assuming that the non-neutral parties are allowed equal space, sort of like turning the section into a debate. But is it WPs role to allow a debate by non-neutral parties each with an extreme bias about the death of a famous movie star, especially when it overrides official police conclusions? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As has been explained to you previously, NPOV is a policy directed to editors regarding how article content is written and is not in regard to the sources cited. Read the article on WP:NPOV - one of the first things stated on the page is, " Editing from a neutral point of view..." Editing - not the sources cited. In the article you are referring to, the article is clear in stating that the events on the night of Wood's death are the opinions of the eyewitnesses and not once are those opinions represented as facts. Further, both viewpoints of the events are given equal time and neither is given undue weight. I just don't see why you have such a concern about the use of both Wagner and Davern's book as reliable sources - there have been other editors already weigh in on this and so far, none (that I can see or recall) have seen it the way you do. Perhaps it's time to move on.....? Lhb1239 (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If you read the second paragraph, it's focused on editors. Editors "overwhelm," by "quoting" and "flood" sections with news cites. An editor can "allow" a debate from non-neutral sources. So if it's necessary for you to respond instead of admins, which is why I posted here, at least respond to the part of the glass that's half full, not half empty. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

(1) This isn't an admin-only noticeboard. Any editor in good standing can post here in response to queries. (2) Does the the NPOV article mention anything about sources being labeled POV, and therefore, are not eligible to be used as reliable and verifiable? Lhb1239 (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

That was answered on her talk page], and relates to your adding a flood of questionable and biased RSs. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

You asked a question here and those who come upon this discussion (and don't know the history) deserve to know where you are coming from rather than being referred to a lot of noisiness at another talk page. Does the NPOV article mention anything about sources being labeled POV, and therefore, are not eligible to be used as reliable and verifiable? As far as your accusation directly above: everything I added as a reference meets Wikipedia's guidelines for sourcing. Lhb1239 (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's only necessary to read the first sentence of NPOV guidelines to see the problem. The death section which revolved around the official conclusion of accidental drowning was increased by 1600 percent, 16 times, with cites from the captain and her husband. They are both non-neutral sources, and the official report is no longer "represented fairly, proportionately, and . . . without bias." On the contrary, it's been drowned out by what seems no better than tabloid journalism relying on a biographical novel used to sensationalize the incident under investigation. It lets WP be used as a platform for magnifying "contentious material about living persons." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

And a number of other editors have previously, and still do, disagree with you in part and in total. When are you going to let this go? Lhb1239 (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of how many editors agree with you (and who are they?), Wikipedia policies must be followed, especially regarding WP:BLP. In addition to the BLP policy, the "Death" section article violates NPOV, recentism and undue weight by concentrating on the news reports of interviews with Davern on November 18, 2011 when the case is 30 years old. Neither of Davern's books is used as a source, only newspaper interviews with Davern. Wagner's recent statements have been omitted. Further, information from Davern's 2008 book in which he gives a different account, is left out of the article completely as well as his initial statements to the police, as are reports of his credibility involving his drinking Natalie Wood Death Investigation Captain Says I Was REALLY Drunk and his lying to the police initially.'She would never go near that dinghy': Sister says Natalie Wood's fear of water makes Wagner and crewmates' tale of how she drowned IMPOSSIBLE Wagner's recent response is left out also, leaving only his 2004 book as his account. The only reliable sources, the are not gossip or personal opinions, are police and coroner reports. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Last night I actually wrote a draft emphasizing initial reports (which we could use more of) and substantially cutting down Wagner and Davern's stories, making it clear they came many years later. My draft also included Davern lying to police; need to mention they were all drinking. You have not replied. So it's not like there isn't some attempt to accommodate those concerns.

Police and coroner reports are not necessarily the beginning and the end of usable material in BLP. Police and coroners can be inept or prejudiced, even more so than reporters. Eye witness reports or other relevant material covered in WP:RS can be used carefully. More reliable contemporaneous sources (circa 1981-1982 or soon after) need to be found. For example, having been alive and paying attention in 1981, I remember her fear of water being much discussed. A contemporaneous source with her sister's more recent comments might be appropriate. A short response from Wagner might be appropriate, as opposed to whole paragraph that was there before. It seems there is more heat than light in the discussion, here and at talk page. Why I do not know. CarolMooreDC 20:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"The only reliable sources...are police and coroner reports." If that were truly the case, then Wikipedia's reliable sources policy would say that and the only sources used in biography articles would refelct such. The sources used in the Wood article have all met Wikipedia's policy and standards for reliable sources. An editor's personal and biased opinion of what is eligible to be a reliable source (and what isn't) is neither here nor there and is exactly the reason why policies exist here. MathewTownsend has stated above that Wikipedia policies must be followed, yet he refuses to follow the policy on what is acceptible as a reliable source. Go figure. Lhb1239 (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Lhb1239 should move his focus from what I have said to replying to the concerns of others. You are not correct in thinking that sourcing the "Death" section to eight news articles published on November 18, 2011, referencing publicity interview material that supports Davern's contention that Robert Wagner is responsible for his wife's death while ignoring statements from Wagner in the same sources, is neutral. Lhb1239 also ignores questions about Davern's reliability as a source, e.g. that he was intoxicated at the time of the incident, that he has changed his story and therefore is lying in his statements to the police initially, in his first book in 2008, or in his new book with "new memories" just published. Which is it, Lhb1239? Also, you are reverting my comments here, please stop. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your comments here when, exactly? Either provide diffs that prove it or retract/strike your bad faith and uncivil accusations. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

p.s. I agree with CarolMooreDC above, that "A short response from Wagner might be appropriate ..." I meant my inclusion of such as a suggestion to be editted down. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Veena Malik

• Veena Malik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's been repeated introduction of information on a nude image of Malik appearing on the cover of FHM India. Currently, a spokesman for Malik says she never took part in such a photoshoot, while FHM India says they have video as well. I've requested partial-semiprotection. To me, it looks like a publicity stunt. BBC has a brief article, where they've been very careful to be neutral, unlike the editors who've tried to add it to the Wikipedia article.

The only response so far from editors who've added the information has been to move the information to the talk page [19], where I've responded with the same information I had left on that editor's talk page. --Ronz (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems a highly notable controversy with international coverage. Just in itself, it's a cover image of a popular magazine, but if you want unrelated sources, we have [20] The Times of India, [21] Express Tribune - Pakistan, and the BBC, The Daily Mirror, The Daily Mail in the UK. If it's a publicity stunt, it has worked. I can't see leaving it out. --GRuban (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There is controversy if it really is Malik, as much as there is controversy if it turns out to be somehow faked. Not including it looks like censorship. Nick Cooper (talk)

So Wikipedia is in the business of scandalmongering?

If someone wants to help write a very carefully worded, neutral entry about it, I wouldn't be against including it until this little stunt blows over. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Since this is a living person biography, I agree that we must be very careful to state the controversy without adding any editorial comment on whether FHM or Malik is telling the truth. Yes, this happened recently, but we have several citations from very reliable sources, and this incident will continue to be relevant in the article in the future. Not to include at least a properly cited sentence or two would seem to be an attempt at whitewashing her bio. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 18:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Seyed Mohammad Marandi

Seyed Mohammad Marandi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This one needs a good going through - pretty harsh commentary on the individual and lot of it looks like original research. I don't have time this weekend to sort it out. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Errant that this article needs revision with regard to diction and tone. However, the whole article is based on more than enough evidence which has been presented in the reference section. It must also be taken into account that there are sources in languages other than English which, though not mentioned in the article for the sake of the English-language reader's convenience, have been drawn upon. Not everything is written in English. The fact that this article has been occasionally vandalized by a number of first-time users without any proof of a real intention of editing is quite reason enough that the article is fact-based. The rate of vandalization was so high at a time that I asked one of the main editors to keep watch on it. Nevertheless, I am open to entertaining suggestions as for the overall improvement of the article.

Timelesstune 02:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just read through the article. The tone appears hostile to the subject. Timelesstune, are you hostile to the subject ? If so, would you consider not working on the article and working on other things instead ? I think this kind of edit where you added "In a most recent sycophantic piece of propaganda, under the title Ayatollah Khamenei and a Principled Foreign Policy"...etc it seems clear that you may have some difficulty editing the article neutrally and complying with the WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policies. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

david montgomery

David Montgomery is also survived by his wife Martel Montgomery. (Marty to her friends) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.180.84.132 (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could clarify what your point is and which David Montgomery you're talking about.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Beanie Wells

Beanie Wells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User 65.116.205.162 is posting massive POV concerning the subject; twice I've reverted it, but this user keeps coming back with the same sort of stuff. Hushpuckena (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I've left a neutrality tag on the IP's Talk page. If they continue to do it, you can escalate the warning level. You can also start a topic on the article Talk page, but the material is so fan-like, it might be better to say something on the IP's Talk page beyond just my warning - an explanation of why it's not permissible. I'll watch the article for a while to help out.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

alexandra stan

In the "Saxobeats era" section, the article states that Alexandra Stan's debut videoclip resulted in "many calling Stan a "whore" or a "cheap girl who rose to fame from nothing"." The reference for that is a link to the video in question where there are absolutely no such comments.

I've removed this for now, though the article clearly needs further work - it looks overly-promotional, and many of the sources cited look questionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan Kern

Jonathan Kern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've copied and pasted the latest addtion to this page posted on November 23, 2011. The content added below (Under the Career section on the page) does not contain any sources and cannot be verified. I believe this addition (not the entire page) violates the biographies of living persons policy and should be deleted.

• Career

Kern has built a successful design business Shellshock Designs Ltd. The company specialises in the production of mother of pearl wall and floor coverings, selling to clients in over 30 countries. In recent years, ShellShock Designs Ltd has initiated an extremely active corporate social responsibility culture, and actively supports a number of charitable institutions. Whilst Jonathan has sought to move on from his past life as a playboy adventurer, he has never denied the things that he did, nor has he sought to justify his actions. He has focused on rebuilding his life as a successful designer and businessman. Kern is well liked in business and design circles and has been repeatedly held up as an example of someone who made mistakes in his youth, paid the price, and moved on to build a successful life and career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabeth Grzeszczyk (talk • contribs) 04:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of another article I saw where a well-known con man (or somebody editing on his behalf) appeared to be using his own Wikipedia article as a PR outlet. Curiously enough, that article also attempted to recast the subject as a "playboy adventurer" and businessman - maybe there's a standard playbook for this sort of thing?

Ignoring Kern's past for a moment. Supposing that this was an article about a legitimate business, and supposing there was no reason to doubt the truth of this content, it still wouldn't be appropriate to run what's basically a puff piece. BLP doesn't oblige us to provide a free advertising service; something along the lines of "Kern now operates a design business Shellshock Designs, specialising in the production of mother of pearl wall and floor coverings" would be quite enough.

After Googling, it looks as if there is considerable doubt as to whether Shellshock is legit. I didn't see any sources that seemed likely to pass WP:RS, so it might not be appropriate to include those doubts in the article, but it still seems like a good reason to be cautious in what we do include. I think it'd be reasonable to delete the entire section until verifiability and notability are established. --GenericBob (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It went through AFD once and barely survived. I've sent it to the lions' den again.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Kern (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Anthony Fisher

See Talk:Anthony Fisher. A user requested an edit, and as I have little experience with BLPs, I'll be cautious and let a more experienced user here take care of it. →Στc. 07:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I have answered yes to the request, although the material I inserted into the article is not the same as what was requested. I modified and compressed it. I wouldn't mind another editor looking at it to see if (1) they agree that the material belongs in the article and (2) if so, that it is worded appropriately. I had mixed feelings about including the material and how much to include.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Cold Fusion Userspace BLP issues

This list of researchers appears to be a major BLP issue where scientists etc are claimed to be cold fusionists: User:POVbrigand/list Talk:Cold_fusion#List_of_LENR_researchers_was_.22List_of_cold_fusion_researchers.22. The guidelines state that it is a BLP issue even in user space. Is this a BLP issue? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is no question that lists in userspace are bound by WP:BLP policy - and given the contentiousness of the topic, any inclusion on such a list would clearly need strong sourcing. More to the point though, the list violates WP:LISTPEOPLE: "The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. An exception to this requirement may be made if the person is especially important in the list's group; for example, if the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have an article in Wikipedia about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to establish their membership in the list's group and to establish their notability". This list instead seems to consist of anyone that has ever done anything LENR/cold-fusion related, notable or not. And then there is the matter of determining whether the research (or whatever) is actually LENR related. Given the apparent reliance on primary sources (where any are provided at all) in the list, it looks to me to be largely WP:OR. Frankly, I think that this list is of little merit, and should be deleted. If POVbrigand wants to compile such a list, he should do it elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Samuel Sloan (chess player)

Samuel Sloan (chess player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,

This individual does not meet the standard of "notability". This person is Template:Nono! This article should be deleted, he probably is the editor that started it!!

This guy really is Template:Nono!!

Here is one YouTube.com video of him to show the true character of this person:

Good luck — Preceding unsigned comment added by JunoBeach (talk • contribs) 22:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The article looks fine to me, whereas your post here doesn't. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Christina DeRosa

Christina DeRosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The page for actress Christinas DeRosa says she is "scheduled to suck black penis" in a couple of upcoming movies. This seems... inaccurate and inappropriate.

Thanks. Vandalism, already fixed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Katja Shchekina

Resolved

 – Main problem is fixed, I will try to fix the minor problems by asking Katja on her blog. Wasbeer 02:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I have discovered how to stop repeated "vandalism" on this article; by admitting it is not vandalism and correcting the false information. The Maxim source says Somali-heritage, the Fashion Model Directory says: Ethnicity: Russian / Somali. But thanks to an IP editor we now have her blog url where she explains that the story about a Somalian heritage is false (scroll down a bit, 2nd post). I think the blog can be treated as a reliable primary source for information about her heritage. I need some help fact-finding because I am unable to understand the Russian language:

• Is her name still correct or should she be renamed to Katja Selivanova? Did she marry, and to who?
• Is her mother Russian, with an Komi-Permyak heritage? If so, the article needs to be edited.
• How should we inform the reader about the confusion?

Wasbeer 01:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

A blog is not a reliable source. We need to use secondary sources for this. --BwB (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It is her only official personal website. Look at the pictures. I don't think this is fake. And please dont say VERIFIABILITYNOTTRUTH. Wasbeer 02:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Best to use secondary sources of Maxim and Fashion Model IMHO. --BwB (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Blog - Google Translate - Old pic with mom - Old pic with dad - New pic with mom - New pic with dad Wasbeer 02:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a BLP, we should be careful, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Maybe its a marketing trick, maybe its just plain BS, but I suspect the people at Maxim and Fashion Model checked Wikipedia and did not notice that this edit was the work of an extremely persistent vandal who uses Comcast proxies. I think the story about the Somalian heritage is false but it has been picked up by a couple of low quality sources that do not spend much time fact-checking. Wasbeer 02:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

"A blog is not a reliable source" - not so. Blogs and other self-published sources are unacceptable for most purposes, but WP:SPS is clear that they can be used as sources about their author - under certain conditions, which look to be satisfied here. Secondary sources are nice as a rule, but they don't always trump primary sources. Maxim is not exactly the most truthy of secondary sources... --GenericBob (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Generic. Still learning new tricks on Wiki. Appreciate the help. --BwB (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I think a claim as unlikely as this requires a very reliable source. Since no reliable secondary sources can be found (just a lot of sources that are made with Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V) that say she has a Somalian heritage we have to stick to the only reliable source we have, Katja herself. I wanted to make sure this article is mentioned here because this is not "simple vandalism"; there is a pattern of "repeatedly adding troublesome material over an extended period" of time through multiple Comcast proxies. Wasbeer 00:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

We cannot inform the reader of the reason why this rumor started because of WP:OR and "no shrines for vandals". So the remaining questions are: "Is her name still correct or should she be renamed to Katja Selivanova? Did she marry, and to who?". If someone is able to find a WP:RS about her marriage/renaming that would be great. I am asking her on her blog too. I found an old BLP noticeboard archive that mentions her. Wasbeer 00:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Phillip Aspinall

The article on Phillip Aspinall is currently being subjected to a vilification campaign by an editor named User:AutoJedi. Action by administrators and other responsible editors will be appreciated. Thanks. Anglicanus (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This "editor" has now been indefinitely blocked (thanks) but may surface with a new account. Anglicanus (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Jacob Arabo

Just a heads up, would a couple of editors put this back on their watch:

Jacob Arabo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Having been off-wiki a lot due to IRL commitments, I was just mooching around my watchlist and saw that this article had been seriously "bulked up" as the main perpetrator contributor of this material puts it. I seriously pruned all of the puffery, copyvio and other vanity nonsense, there has been a recent tentative to remove the criminal proceedings section as well.

Oh and while we're at it, check the user who did the "bulking up":

Monstermike99 (talk · contribs)

if you look at the contribs it's exclusively about tweaking BLPs, I smell hired PR service, anybody care to dig deeper?

Cheers CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Agnes Rapai

Agnes Rapai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is written by Agnes Rapai herself. She is a self proclaimed writer, tho insignificant and unknown even in Hungary. She wants to seem to be someone significant, and she thinks that making articles about herself on wikipedia would make her one. On the discussion page she clearly admits it that she doesnt speak english so she dictated the article to her husband who translated it.

She doesnts speak or write in english and relatively unknown eben in Hungary. Why would anyone want to read about her in english?

Is it ok when a person makes a biographical article about himself or herself?

The same stands to the hungarian version of her article (and her friend Forgács Zsusa - http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgács_Zsuzsa) but since there are friends of hers among hungarian wikipedia editors, even questions on the discussion page are labeled vandalism and removed.

pls delete her page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.185.148 (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged it for deletion. --BwB (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed that tag because it wasn't the correct one. I can't tell if she's notable because of my unfamiliarity with Hungarian and Hungarian sources. There are reviews of her works, of which only some are linked (some links didn't work, and I removed those), but I confess, even after translating them with Google, I just can't determine how notable she is.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23 for the advice on my talk page re deletion proposal policy. It is very helpful in learning more about Wiki policies. --BwB (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Note to IP: It's okay for you to question the notability of a subject, but don't personally attack the subject or, as you did on the article Talk page, call her a "nobody".--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It's now been prodded for deletion properly, but because of my concerns, I have posted a message at the Hungarian project.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Fingleton#cite_note-Sun-0

Resolved

 – Fixed. Was dead link bought by domainsquatter, not spam. Wasbeer 03:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The "official website" at the bottom of this page appears to be spam or at the very least and undeveloped property. The site appears to be a real commercial site devoid of any meaningful content, but I only looked at 3 pages in addition to the home page. Anyone interested in editing can fix it if desired. I know y'all make a big deal out of unofficial spam here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.2.86.163 (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that is probably not unofficial spam, that is the address where his website used to be. I've checked archive.org and it seems very likely that his official website was used as a source for the article, it shouldn't be an external link but it should be a reference I guess. Wasbeer 20:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit war over Joe Kapp / Angelo Mosca

It looks like an edit war is getting underway at Angelo Mosca and Joe Kapp. From what I understand, they got into a scuffle, someone added sourced information about it to both relevant articles, and another user deems it "unnecessary fluff" and is repeatedly removing the information from both articles. nprice (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Robert Haralick

Robert Haralick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am not sure that my comments are about violations.

I would like to clear up the comments on my biography. I am not sure what to do and would appreciate working with an editor on this.

Robert M. Haralick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haralick (talk • contribs) 21:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean all the tags at the top (which have been there for a long time). There are two things that stand out when I scanned the article. First, the opening paragraph should say who you are, not just where you were born, i.e., what is it that you are notable for. It should then have a summary of the body (below). Second, there are almost no inline references. Information must be sourced to reliable sources that are verifiable. And it's not helpful to have a list of pubs and external links that might support the assertions in the article. It's better to have inline footnotes for all the material that directly point to the sources. One thing you could do is compile a list of sources that support the material and post them on the article's Talk page (you should not be editing your own article based on WP:COI). You could also tell us what you think should go in the lead.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Linda Green

We have an article at Linda Green (Robosigner). Robosigning, in this case, is a Bad Thing which is apparently what she's notable for. Is this title appropriate? Other BLPs don't get disambiguating suffixes like "(liar)" or "(murderer)" or whatever. I would consider simply moving to Linda Green, but that's occupied by a television series article. Is it worth setting up a 2-line dab? Where is best to move her? bobrayner (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

As it's not a single person, but rather a name for a group of people who signed with that name, I don't see how it could possibly be an issue. Yworo (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well... my understanding was that it is a real person, but that a bunch of other people may have signed stuff on her behalf. It's still a real person's name. Should we have a different title? bobrayner (talk) 10:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is not a biography. It gives no personal details, no date of birth, no place of birth, no place of residence, no parents, no education, etc. It's about the signature. It's about an event. And it had no people-related categories until you added "Living person". Yworo (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Chris Driver

Chris Driver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Christopher Anthony Peter Driver is my husband,we married 11/01/1969 in Dartford (St. Anselms church). We moved to Brambledown, Minster on The Isle of Sheppey 1984 & in 1989 Chris founded his business as merchant to engineering trades, C.D.Supplies Ltd. (originally C.D.Engineering Supplies Ltd.)employing 7-8 people. At the 1997 general election Chris couldnt vote for any of the candidates put before him & would not abstain so he joined the Official Monster Raving Loony Party to become their candidate in Sittingbourne & Sheppey (Swale) constituency,gaining 644 votes & sharing Lord Sutch's balloon ride donated by Virgin, to search for floating voters. Unhappy about political bullying in local government,in 2000 Chris stood in elections for Swale Borough Council & Queenborough Town Council. Screaming Lord Sutch claimed Chris was his first Official Monster Raving Loony Party candidate on ballot paper to be elected by votes counted (i.e. not by default). Media descended on him but a press agency mistakenly checked Borough Council election results instead of Town, so publicity was scotched & and Lord Sutch said the agency had sabotaged his "Loony Landslide". When Lord Sutch died there was a rift in the OMRLP & the Rock'N'Roll Loony Party was founded with Chris as leader. He was elected by Town Council as Deputy Mayor of Queenborough in 2002 but in 2003 the outgoing Mayor refuted Chris's right to step up as Mayor because he was elected to Council as represative of a political party. The Town Council convened to elect a Mayor & Chris won, he was popular with other dignatories especially the Cinque Ports'Mayors, many of whom regard Queenborough as an "unofficial Cinque Port". The RNRLP was de-registered after several years due to escalating quantity of red-tape, we couldnt keep up with that and our day jobs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alma driver (talk • contribs) 10:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alma. I'm guessing you've provided this information here so it can be added to your husband's article? Unfortunately, per our bios on living persons policy, info needs to be well-sourced to be included. Has Mr. Driver been written up in a newspaper/magazine that would meet our reliability guidelines? The Interior (Talk) 11:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Added refs from newspapers confirming his party and election results. Collect (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

David Pearce (philosopher)

I am new to this process and would appreciate some help with a dispute occurring on the David Pearce article: Talk:David_Pearce_(philosopher)#Serious_Wikipedia:Notability_and_WP:BLPSPS_.28Avoid_self-published_sources.29_issues_all_over_this_article and Talk:David_Pearce_(philosopher)#Not_one_secondary_source.2C_independent_biography_or_reference_to_a_peer_reviewed_journal._Weasel_worded_claims_throughout.

The dispute is over Wikipedia policies. It does not appear as though the disagreement will come to a conclusion as the anonymous user and the logged in editors are fundamentally disagreeing about the interpretation of Wikipedia policies. There is also disagreement over whether to delete the bulk of the article or to add citations and gradually refine the article. For instance, there is a question about BLPSPS - anonymous user says BLPSPS says David Pearce's websites can't be linked because they are self-published. But I think this is a stretch because David Pearce is a philosopher/author who happens to publish his essays on the web. IMO the privacy criteria does apply because the details are not about his personal life but rather about his philosophy. His writings are referenced in books, magazine articles, university lectures, etc., so I think they are relevant and I am trying to clean up the article more by linking to these sources. Also the anonymous user listed the article for deletion without first discussing it on the talk page, so I want to assume good faith but it is hard to believe there is not a hidden agenda. Would a third party please help us interpret these policies? Keystroke (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

OK -- the SPS can not be used to establish notability - articles need outside sources for that. The SPS can be used for establishing his own opinions as stated by him, and generally for such stuff as name and birth year where no one argues that they are contentious. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

there is something wrong with that article, the edit history suggests to me that it is under the control of a small group of editors who seem not to understand basic policy (for example our policies on ELs). --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I have chopped out much of the stuff about BLTC Research because it was too detailed for the article about the individual. I agree that more eyes are needed. – ukexpat (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

all of the references need checking carefully, the subject seems to own hundreds if not thousands of website, so on cursory examination, he is mentioned alot but it's not clear if all of those sites are actually independent of him. I'm not even sure if BLTC research exists beyond being an idea he has put on a couple of webpages - if it's registered as an ltd company or a charity in the UK, I've found no references. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

enda kenny

Enda Kenny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Second sentence in article "Enda Kenny" quotes "he was born without a spine . . . that . . . has characterised his political career." Not a good situation for Wikipedia, my favourite! Z — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.125.188 (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism removed, editor warned. Thanks for the report - next time - please consider, wikipedia policy and guidelines encourages you to WP:BEBOLD and consider removing the violating addition yourself. Youreallycan (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Wellington Reiter

Resolved

Not so much a BLP violation, as a plea for assistance on a BLP. The topic is an article on a likely notable academic. The problem is that most, if not all, revisions in the multi-year history of the page are highly promotional. The page has recently been blanked, which is how I found it. But I'm not really finding anything in the history as a good point to revert the blanking to. I would mostly be restoring the unsourced puffery no matter where I restored to. But, as he is likely notable, I'm hesitant to just try to get the page deleted. *Something* needs to be done, as it really cannot stay as a blank page. But I'm at a loss as to the right solution. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Appears more than sufficiently notable - so I depuffed a bit and added an RS source to establish his notability. Collect (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Landeryou

The Australian political writer Andrew Landeryou has been the subject of edit warring and BLP violations. About 12 hours ago, I put full page protection on the article for four days to prevent edit warring. It was then brought to my attention that a source had been included that broke WP:BLPPRIMARY, namely public records from ITSA, the Insolvency Trustee Service Australia, a bankruptcy claim about the subject of the article. User:Garth M seems insistent on putting this into the article and claims it is essential to understanding the subject of the article. I have deleted the upload of these public records and redacted their use with revdel as a precaution: I'd rather say sorry for overzealous use of revdel than have to make an even bigger apology for doing nothing about a BLP issue like this.

It'd be useful if some BLP regulars could have a look at the issues here. Once sensible consensus emerges, I'll be happy to unprotect and un-revdel if appropriate. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Just for reference, this issue was previously discussed at the dispute resolution noticeboard. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have never sought to put the ITSA record into the article. It was placed on the discussion page to confirm two details:

• it corrects the erroneous birthdate on the article (the article claimed, without source, that Landeryou was born in 1970: the correct date according to the bankruptcy records is 19 September 1969).
• it confirms that the bankruptcy - which was covered in a lot of secondary sources at its commencement, including the ABC - is now discharged. The bankruptcy was notable enough for coverage in the national media, and should be included in the article - but without the note about the discharge, it gives the false impression that the subject is still an undischarged bankrupt, which he isn't.

The ITSA search (for which you have to pay about $30) is probably copyrighted, so I understand not including the whole record. But it's available to prove the details so they can be confirmed. Obviously Landeryou was born on some date, and this is the best available evidence for that date. Garth M (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The article should be unprotected but the user uploading what is admitted to be WP:BLPPRIMARY should be restrained from edit warring and BLP and privacy and WP:3RR violations. Looking at previous versions, the only source on the year Landeryou was born is 1970. Then there is an alternate claim that it is 1969, but I cannot verify that. I don't want to contribute to an article in this situation even though I could probably clean it up. Users with an agenda, as there appears to be going on here, need to be kept away otherwise this relatively inconsequential figure will absorb more attention than makes sense. Recent versions have seen User: Garth M delete tags on the article, remove anything s/he deems to be positive however well-sourced, upload original research (I didn't see it), and generally act inappropriately. The user's account seems to be exclusively involved in editing just one article. There's something very strange going on here. --Brandonfarris (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree the article be unprotected because Garth M has just been editing without using Talk page. Additions to the article have been removed without explanation or consensus. --Caterann (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Caterann was the one removing material without using the talk page. And the previous anonymous IPs that were doing the editing until it was originally locked.

If I deleted a tag, it was by accident. And yes, I haven't been editing other articles recently, I've been a bit dormant on Wikipedia. But I saw the Landeryou article the other day, realised silent edits had been done removing critical material (that I now see was the subject of an edit war between other persons more than a year ago) which I replaced. And as soon as I did, anonymous IPs reverted it. So I reverted them. And that went back and forth for a while. Basically I reverted old material that had been agreed to be included, and anonymous IPs and, when anonymous IPs were blocked, Caterann, were just reverting them. So I'd un-revert them. (A bit stubborn, but it was so outrageous I could hardly just go "oh well, let's let the subject's mates put the wrong birthdate on there and delete the material Wikipedia editors clearly agreed to include.)

It is not true that I've "removed anything s/he deems to be positive" - I think the material at the end about his claimed "scoops" is highly POV and significantly overstated. But I didn't address that in my recovery of the material quietly deleted over the last year.

Brandon, what's the source on the 1970 birthdate? I couldn't see one, and obviously editors can see that it's wrong, even if we can't for some arbitrary reason include the ITSA record as an actual source. Garth M (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Mark McCammon

Hi My name is Mark McCammon

I have recently viewed this biography written by others about myself by other people. I have noticed there have recently been large volumes of editions to the article made since the 5th of December to present.

I have a forthcoming court case which will be taking place and is subject to ongoing proceedings, and have been instructed by my solicitor to inform you that there are a few statements contained within the article which I request to be removed and all edits prevented from being made up until the 23rd December 2011.

The main paragraph of concern comes under the section called:

'Playing style'

The first part of this section 'McCammon is a target man striker,[34] able to win the ball in the air.[35]' can remain

However I request the following paragraph to be removed:

McCammon has been known to speak his views clearly, publicly criticizing managers Dennis Wise, Mark Stimson and Mark McGhee,[36][37][38] also once calling up a radio show to vent his frustration with the host for stating that he was not worth a place in the Brighton first eleven.[39] McGhee once substituted McCammon at half-time in one game after the pair fell out, following this the striker shunned the team bus to travel home from the game by car.[40]

The update that has been added by the person who edited this cannot prove that it is true.

Part of the issues discussed is currently subject to ongoing proceedings football related, and pending trial, recent comments made will prejudice the trial.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxBaker123 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The material in question is supported by references to BBC Sport. There is no issue with WP:V or WP:RS here. I have no idea what the trial is about, but it's not obvious why Wikipedia would accede to the requests of one party when doing so might create a disadvantage for another party. The trial is not Wikipedia's business. We will be very keen to ensure that a biography does not contain unverifiable information (particularly if it is somehow negative), but I cannot see how the material in question is unverifiable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please inform your solicitor that we do not respond favorably here to legal threats (although I don't characterize your rather puzzling request as falling within the boundaries of "legal threat"). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Doug Williams (bassist)

Doug Williams (bassist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would it be possible to get more eyes on Doug Williams (bassist)? An account that purports (and could very well be) the subject keeps editing the article to restore large swaths of original research and unsourced personal information that I removed based on an OTRS complaint. When I pointed out our WP:COI policy and directed them to WP:AUTO#IFEXIST an IP suddenly popped up to revert back to the non-BLP compliant version. Perhaps someone will be better able to explain why the edits are problematic? I can't seem to get through. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

And including the IP, they are now at four reverts to restore the problematic BLP material. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Have done some editing and added RS tags. Hope this helps. --BwB (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I still have major concerns with three entire paragraphs of unsourced info in the first section (from "Williams grew up" onwards). The information has been challenged (and is therefore contentious) and the editor adding the info has been unable or is unwilling to state their sources other than to claim they are the subject (hence original research). It's the reason I removed the content on BLP grounds in the first place and only kept the career-focused information that helped establish notability. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 02:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree and have gutted the article. There were only two sources - neither very good, but one was a blog, which I removed (didn't say much anyway). I removed all of the unsourced material. It now only has two sentences sourced to the one Allmusic source (which is only about Williams peripherally).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sabot-7 (talk · contribs) is dedicated to restoring material without references. I've reverted twice (and warned re 3RR), but this one might need semi-protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection won't help unfortunately, Sabot-7 has passed the auto-confirmed threshold.Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheye Calvo

I am concerned by this biography. The article basically only discusses an incident in which the subject was never charged or even accused of wrongdoing (from what I can tell). Most of the material here is not even biographical in nature. There is literally not even a full sentence about his mayorship, but there are over 300 words about the incident. Anyone willing to try to fix it up? Dominic·t 00:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be redirected to an article exclusively on the incident and give no info on Calvo's other activities or BLP details. What's up with that? --BwB (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the redirect, there was originally an article about Calvo that was redirected to the incident article based on WP:BLP1E. Seems reasonable to me based on the pre-existing article about Calvo, which had nothing but stuff about the incident already covered in another article. Someone could always challenge the redirect, but I doubt they'd get anywhere.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Duncan Lunan

Duncan Lunan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please delete Duncan Lunan entry!!!!!!!!I do not want a Wiki entry! I try to correct mistakes and get blocked. In order to ensure that no more incorrect entries are made I wish "Duncan Lunan" entry to be deleted!

Duncan Lunan Science Writer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duncan Lunan (talk • contribs) 00:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Duncan! I am not sure if the article about you can be deleted or not, but what you should please do is to contact the volunteer team by email at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) (look for the email address on that page) to confirm that you are indeed Duncan Lunan and that you prefer the article to be deleted. This would also give you the opportunity to formally record any objections you have to the content of the article. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please note that there is nothing in the deletion policy stating that articles are to be deleted if the subject of the article does not want for there to be an article. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

George Grant (author)

George Grant (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A user, EducationalResource, continually inserts false assertions, editorial opinions, and erroneous assumptions to this article. Despite removing the offending and contentious material, he or she persists in vandalizing the article. It would be better to have no article at all than to have this constant harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HermBavinck (talk • contribs) 02:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:VAN for what qualifies as vandalism. While his actions are misguided and his additions unsourced, creating his user page and labelling him a vandal is not appropriate either. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

If George Grant would prefer there to be no article about him at all on Wikipedia, one step that might help (in a very small way) is to formally identify himself to the WMF volunteer team. See Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) (look for the email address on that page) for how to do that. This is purely to make sure it's not some imposter that is trying to get the article about Grant deleted.

Incidentally, the sections about Grant that you have been repeatedly deleting, do indeed seem in need of deletion. Try not to engage in edit warring. More eyes on this article from other editors, would be appreciated. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have done some "clean-up" editing to the article. Hope it helps. --BwB (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

edit summary redaction

Im not looking for any "punishment" or drama, but should the edit summary here be redacted? It says a living person supports an al-Qaeda leader with a link to a site that says no such thing. nableezy - 04:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a matter for WP:OVERSIGHT. – ukexpat (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Gregory Paul Martin

Gregory Paul Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The subject has pointed out that this article is "overwritten and verbose". It is certainly not a very good article, largely unsourced. Hopefully someone will be interested in adopting it? In addition to posting here, I am thinking that it might be best to post on relevant Wikiprojects... what would those be, I wonder? --Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The text of our article also appears, almost verbatim, on the subject's own website. Who has copied whom? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: Now stubbed by another editor. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Lionel Snell

Lionel Snell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We have a WP:BLPCAT issue here. Two different editors Rodneyorpheus (talk · contribs) and Jeraphine Gryphon (talk · contribs) have been adding a religious category Category:Thelemites, without a citation to an explicit statement of belief. I've explained WP:BLPCAT to them, but they insist that using inference is sufficient: "initiate of OTO = Thelemite. membership of OTO suffices as proof". This is occurring on several other articles as well

• Richard Kaczynski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• James Wasserman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

O.T.O. itself states on its website that O.T.O. is not a religion [22]. Many people who join OTO may consider themselves Pagan, Wiccan, etc. The FAQ linked explicitly states "O.T.O. does not impose restrictions on members' beliefs." People who join O.T.O. make no formal change of religious belief. They may or may not consider themselves to be "Thelemites" or they may continue to hold to whatever faith or belief they held before they joined. See also further down where the question is asked "How do I become a Thelemite?" answered "By deciding that you are a Thelemite" which is consistent with our requirement for citation to a statement of self-identifiation. No other method of conversion is specified. Yworo (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"Have been adding", more like you've been removing without real cause. Being a member of a Thelemic organization is equal to self-identifying as a Thelemite. Look at the other people in the category, the category is not mainly about people's personal beliefs, it's rather about their connections to certain organizations. Because besides that, there really are no unifying elements. See the article on Thelema:

"Modern Thelema is a syncretic philosophy and religion, and many Thelemites try to avoid strongly dogmatic or fundamentalist thinking. Crowley himself put strong emphasis on the unique nature of Will inherent in each individual, not following him, saying he did not wish to found a flock of sheep. Thus, contemporary Thelemites may practice more than one religion, including Discordianism, Wicca, Gnosticism, Satanism, Setianism and Luciferianism."

One for the list: Kenneth Anger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think the categories should be put back, they're useful. For finding Thelemites. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 16:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the above, all of the examples listed have explicitly identified themselves at Thelemites in multiple publications, interviews etc. (for example appearing on the podcast "Thelema NOW!"), as well as being members of the foremost Thelemic organisation. To argue that they shouldn't be listed as Thelemites strikes me as quite bizarre, when so many sources can be found in their works stating very clearly that they are. Also, as Jeraphine states, the category is useful - which is kind of the point of having it. Having a category which ignores most of the significant contributors to the field is going to be somewhat misleading and inefficient surely --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

If indeed "so many sources can be found in their works stating very clearly that they are", then what is the problem with actually citing one such statement? Yworo (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Dispositive point is the quote They may or may not consider themselves to be "Thelemites" . WP:BLP requires explicit RS sourcing for any contentious claims, and this holds true for infoboxes and categories as well. WP:BLP does not say; "Include everyone you can to make the category efficient." Collect (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Maureen Van Zandt

Resolved

 – Vandalism reverted. JFHJr (㊟) 20:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments are opinion and offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmseery (talk • contribs) 19:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I reverted the vandalism. JFHJr (㊟) 20:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)